User talk:Yoho2001

This is Yoho2001's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Welcome!

Hello, Yoho2001, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 06:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue with Image:Buffalo National Park, Alberta (abolished).jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Image:Buffalo National Park, Alberta (abolished).jpg, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from Google Earth, which uses copyrighted images from TerraMetrics and Europa Technologies. As a copyright violation, Image:Buffalo National Park, Alberta (abolished).jpg appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Image:Buffalo National Park, Alberta (abolished).jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on [[Talk:Image:Buffalo National Park, Alberta (abolished).jpg]]. If the article or image has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Image:Buffalo National Park, Alberta (abolished).jpg, after describing the release on the talk page. However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Jesse Viviano 21:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your image tagging

However you are doing it, you're doing it wrong. Can you either select the right licence fromt he drop-down list when uploading the image or simply type "{{GFDL-self}}" into the description once uploaded. Thanks/wangi 17:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:DavidGibsonPlaque.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DavidGibsonPlaque.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 8 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pingo National Landmark, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 14:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Country references

Wikipedia is read internationally. Please do not remove the country reference from articles. Thank you. Skeezix1000 11:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general I agree, but typical references for the U.S., Canada, U.K. (and sometimes Australia), use sub-national names (states, provinces), full stop. These are always linked, so if a reader has any doubt, it's easy to look up. Yoho2001 09:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles do, in fact, reference the country. In any event, those articles that do not contain a country reference should be edited to include one. WP:BETTER states that "Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and worldviews. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to fully explain the subject." It also states:"State facts which may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader. Usually, such a statement will be in the first sentence or two of the article."

A reader should not have to consult other articles to determine such a fundamental piece of information, especially when the information was until recently in the article itself. WP:LEAD states: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. Many users read only the lead, so it should be self-contained and cover the main points."

The country in which a place is located is key information, and there does not appear to be any compelling reason to remove that information from either the lead paragraph or infobox of an article. Skeezix1000 17:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get the sense that you may have taken offense to something I edited which is close to your heart. If that's the case, feel free to let me know and we can discuss it. I'm certainly not trying to offend. About your argument in general, though... By the same logic, we should add the name of the continent as well. And in fact, that might make sense for articles about subjects in smallish countries that are less generally known (e.g., The Gambia). But we shouldn't impose that upon every article. For most, the country does suffice. But in the U.S., Canada, and the U.K., common usage and style is to note the city, sometimes county (especially in the U.K.), then the state or province (in the U.K.: England/Scotland/Wales/N. Ireland). These sub-national units are part of the common lexicon, and many approximate the size of nations. I appreciate your desire for consistency, but it's sometimes hard to impose that across the board. I suppose it depends on context. Sometimes the country is called for, sometimes it's not. I'm trying to imagine seeing "United States of America" or even just "U.S.A." in every related article, and it seems onerous and, in many cases, not essential. The beauty of Wikipedia is that common style can be observed, while allowing any reader in doubt to lookup a fact. Yoho2001 04:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you haven't caused any offense.

No, it would be unusual and unnecessary to name the continent.

You seem to be mistaken as to the common usage in Wikipedia.

You needn't travel far beyond Canada's borders for a good many people not to know where Saskatchewan or Ontario is. The same can be said for Australian states, French regions, German states, etc.

In any event, "people can look it up" is not a valid reason to remove correct and relevant information from an article.

Whereas I agree that sometimes the fact the information is true does not mean that it merits inclusion in an article (we've all seen instances where an editor insists on cramming an article full of trivial minutia), the country in which a place is located is fundamental information. Skeezix1000 18:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:DauphinGate.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:DauphinGate.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use disputed for Image:RochfortPoint.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RochfortPoint.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use disputed for Image:KingsBastion.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:KingsBastion.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Jack Pine.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The Jack Pine.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Algonquin Stamp 1993.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Algonquin Stamp 1993.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Court House at N-O-T-L.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Court House at N-O-T-L.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Autumn Birches.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Autumn Birches.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:April in Algonquin Park.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:April in Algonquin Park.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Fort York stamp 1985.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fort York stamp 1985.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FortErieStamp1985.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FortErieStamp1985.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FortHenryStamp.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FortHenryStamp.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FortWellingtonStamp.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FortWellingtonStamp.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FortressBooklet.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FortressBooklet.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FortressFDC1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FortressFDC1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FortressFDC2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FortressFDC2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:HensonStamp.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HensonStamp.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Isaac Brock stamp.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Isaac Brock stamp.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Niagara-on-the-Lake stamp, 1981.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Niagara-on-the-Lake stamp, 1981.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:World Scout Jamboree Stamp.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:World Scout Jamboree Stamp.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:HumptyDumptyLogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:HumptyDumptyLogo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 20:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:The West Wind.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:The West Wind.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) 20:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:GardenHospitalBarracks.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:GardenHospitalBarracks.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Louisbourg2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Louisbourg2.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image permission problem with Image:Yonge Street plaque.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Yonge Street plaque.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media 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 GFDL 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org, 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 did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia: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 uploaded by following this link. Images 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. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 18:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Hi, I only recoloured the horrid grey map before. I'm afraid that would mean having to draw a new line to recolor America which I'm not familiar with. Hopefully some time we can get some better maps. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Country references

Please stop removing country references from articles. Wikipedia is read internationally, and the country reference is a standard and important piece of information. Obviously, there is no issue replacing awkward language (such as "Canadian province of Saskatchewan") or adding a province reference, but neither edit requires removing the country reference. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For most countries I'd agree, but when you have states and provinces which themselves eclipse the size of most nations, it may not be as necessary to include the country name--at least in the first sentence. Perhaps a more creative way of informing could be sought. Instead of the simple addition of "United States of America", "Canada" and "United Kingdom" to every single placename reference in these countries (a style overly repetitive and tedious), a phrase incorporating the country name could be written. That would preserve the common reference style (<city, state> and <city, province>, full stop), whilst telling the country. In some cases, the country name may not even be necessary if the article has an accompanying map of national or continental scale clearly showing a place's location. Such maps and infoboxes typically contain a 'country' field. Yoho2001 (talk) 05:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're overly complicating it, and your view that the style is repetitive and tedious is subjective (and nobody is suggesting that it has to be repeated throughout the article where it is unnecessary to do so - just the lead). It's the standard on Wikipedia, regardless of the infobox or the views of individual editors on the (ir)relevance of the physical size of provinces vis-a-vis other nations. Please stop. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to things sylistic, observations are often subjective. The <city, state> and <city, province> style does follow well-established custom, and is also found in myriad articles on Wikipedia. We have no argument about geographic fact, just how it might be best presented. County, continental and hemispheric names are commonly omitted. The country name may well be germane, and could be included in the lead sentence. And if it can be done in a creatively informative way, as I think it could almost always be, so much the better. Yoho2001 (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The <city, state> and <city, province> style follows well-established custom in the United States and Canada. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, and its style should serves the needs of its international readers, not just what is North American readers are accustomed to. It is unreasonable to expect that international readers have ever heard of Ontario and Manitoba, let alone Prince Edward Island. They can be expected to know where Canada is, so adding Canada helps the reader locate where in the world the subject of the article is. Your deletion of Canada does not hep international readers in any way. In the case of your edits to William Hay (architect), changing "Toronto, Canada" to "Toronto, Ontario" to describe his work from 1853-1861 was anachronistic -- "Ontario" did not come into use until 1867. Before that, the region was the Canada West part of the Province of Canada. Quebec was not used officially - it was Canada East. Regards, Ground Zero | t 19:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Hay article omitted the name of the province in favor of the country name, a bothersome habit I've noticed elsewhere, which we agree goes against convention in the U.S. and Canada. I inserted Ontario to adhere to that convention for the sake of readers here in America, and for the sake of readers from further away—to educate them about the convention and tell them what province we're talking about. The name of the country could well be included in the same or an adjacent sentence in a more creative way than by omitting the province. Perhaps here we could say "Toronto, Ontario (then called Canada West)".

You're correct about Ontario not coming into being until 1867. That's a point I've made elsewhere on the web. Even historical plaques sometimes get the name wrong. But in this case, the reference is to the oldest buildings currently in the city of Toronto. And Toronto is currently in Ontario. The reference is contemporary, not historical. If the article said Hays built such-and-such a building in 1854 in Toronto, Ontario, that would be inaccurate. The way it is written, however, allows for the use of Ontario.

Apart from this, I'm surprised at the number of references to places in Canada which almost obsessively insert "Canada" in place of provincial names. Sometimes they are in addition to them, as if addressing a package overseas. By comparison, the U.S., with the same <city, state> convention, seems comfortable with the use of that style, in many places not even adding 'United States'. Perhaps it's an expression of confidence in public knowledge of state names(?). If there's any doubt, the beauty of Wikipedia is that the state and province name is linked to an explanation. Yet provinces are, for the most part, much larger than states, and deserve a similar expression. Both countries' names can be used, of course, but I'd suggest not as part of a string of three geographic names. Yoho2001 (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely that people reading Wikipedia are more familiar with state names than with provincial names because of the prevalence of U.S. media. Having said that, it would be more useful for international readers to identify the country, rather than the state. The fact that many U.S.-centric writers do not do so is not a good argument for making the same mistake with Canadian articles. Providing useful information for international readers is a far, far better goal to work towards than "convention" in Canada and the U.S. Canadian readers already know that Toronto is in Ontario. Why do they need that repeated here? A reader in South Africa or India or China probably does not know where Ontario is, and may not know that Toronto is in Canada. Why is it more important to follow local convention that to provide useful information? Ground Zero | t 21:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Ronald Reagan stamp 2011.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Ronald Reagan stamp 2011.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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Yoho2001, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Yoho2001/List of National Park System official units (Canada). In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

See a log of files removed today here.

Shut off the bot here.

Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bead Hill

Did you make this edit, perhaps while you were inadvertently not signed in, to add the coordinates for Bead Hill? Someone from Rouge Park is trying to delete the coordinates, in order to protect the integrity of the archaeological resources. Typically, we would not delete this information simply because Rouge Park staff demand it, especially if it is publicly available, but we might consider the request if depending on the issues involved. The first question is how you came to know the coordinates (assuming it was you that added them). Perhaps you just happen to be familiar with the site. However, if the coordinates are widely known, then that could potentially impact how we deal with the Rouge Park request. Cheers, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skeezix. Your question prompted a little searching. It seems the Bead Hill location is publicly available on a Heritage Toronto map, where it's identified by its alternate name "Ganatsekwyagon": http://www.heritagetoronto.org/discover-toronto/map. It's also found on a map by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, which is on Rouge Park's governing board: http://www.trca.on.ca/dotAsset/37769.pdf (page 11-25).

Also, I recall a public debate about the land being sold to a developer who wanted to build either a subdivision or a hotel there. That prompted nomination of the site to the HSMB, which named it a NHS. It was reported in the papers, along with its location and photographs, and possibly a map. Interestingly, the Rouge Park website highlights Bead Hill as one of its treasures, though without giving a location: http://www.rougepark.com/unique/cultural.php

If coordinates are removed, I suppose the same logic could be applied to the rest on the list (in order to "protect" sites), and we wouldn't know where our NHSs are. When you refer to "we", do you mean those of us on Wikipedia who are interested? Yoho2001 (talk) 06:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's very helpful. By "we", I mean anyone interested. I will raise the issue generally, and leave you a note once that's done letting you know so you can participate. By protection, I think the person who raised this concern was really talking in terms of archaeological resources, which could be potentially be disturbed, so the same logic wouldn't necessarily apply to other historic sites. But I do see your point. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to share views on this in a general discussion. Many NHSs include archeological resources which are already legally protected from significant disturbance and removal, even if not gated and staffed (many are not). Battle of Cook's Mills NHS, for example, is a unit of the national park system containing archeological remains. There are no visitor facilities or staff on site, leaving its resources as vulnerable as those at Bead Hill. But its location is marked. Yoho2001 (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have spoken with the person from Rouge Park, Goodnewt, who is a little perplexed by this process. She indicated that she might like to discuss the issue with you first before I raise it in a wider forum, so she may leave a note here. I still think the issue needs to be raised for some wider input, but I have said that I will hold off doing so until she says to go ahead. Obviously I would let you both know immediately upon doing so so that you can both share your thoughts. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Henson NHS.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Henson NHS.jpg, which you've sourced to http://www.waymarking.com/wm/details.aspx?f=1&guid=f0088615-3fab-4f91-b3a7-3158d305927f. 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 permissions-enwikimedia.org, 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 permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File 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. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:First Parliament Buildings plaque.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:First Parliament Buildings plaque.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 permissions-enwikimedia.org, 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 permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File 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. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving photos

Actually the description only said I am the uploader of the image on commons, all the rest sait you are the author of the photos and the original uploader. I know this problem on Commons. As a compromise I can create a hidden category like commons:Category:Images by Fralambert for traking your picture. It's also usefull if somemone decide to correct one of your poicture on commons. The best is always to upload directly your photos on commons, so a another wiki can also have the acces to it. --Fralambert (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Over the last week, I took a break from being challenged on contributions I made to the text of an article. Sometimes within minutes of sending something in, things were reverted and/or deleted, after I'd spent a fair effort getting the information and sources. Rather than feeling I was making a positive contribution (the impetus to working on Wikipedia), the challenges and quick deletions of even small points, ahead of discussion, was discouraging, emotionally draining, and time-consuming insofar as writing replies and defenses. I opted to focus for a while on uploading my NHS photos, an arena in which I believed there would be no controversy, and might even win a word of appreciation.

About the photo files: You're correct, there are references to the original author and uploader, but looking at File History, it's easy to get the impression that the one who moved it from Wikipedia to Commons is the author. That user is listed first, alongside a thumb of the image, and is the sole "user" identified there. I'm not sure how creating a hidden category helps. Also, the new infobox created immediately below the main photo is not the one I created, and does not appear to allow editing now (does it?). These issues bring up some of the very frustrations I was seeking to escape for a time.

When first uploaded, the pictures were for use on en.wikipedia. I notice French descriptions have been added to several image files, sometimes replacing the English ones I had created. Is there a reason for that? Do you plan to add other languages? Do you add French (and other) descriptions to other photos you find?

When I first uploaded these recent photos, the intention was to restrict them to Wikipedia before sending them to Commons. For one, I have grown familiar with the method of uploading to Wikipedia. For another, it was to allow time for any glitches or comments to be made by users. For another, it would allow time to learn the process of uploading to Commons, and what that implies. I'm flattered you want to see them available for other pages and projects. Is it urgent they be moved from where I placed them, within days or hours of publication? I've seen others' images not be touched for years. I don't mind doing the moving. Yoho2001 (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Hidden cat is the best way to keep track of your picture on Commons, even if a another person upload or reupload your picture. Actually, for the description I use de template multilanguage description or mld for short, just check betwin the picture ans the description they are maybe setled in french. (oops. I fund a problem in the walker site, it is now corrected). Your picture a quite good and usefull, you sould have no shame to put them directly on commons. The licence is mostly the same and they have a featured picture system, like commons:Commons:Quality images, wich a wiki don't have. I would be tankfull if you put them on commons so I can use some of them on the wiki in french. --Fralambert (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fralambert. Perhaps I'll revisit all the photos I've made and send them to Commons under my name. Of course, these images are to be shared (and I appreciate your desire to use them). There is yet something proprietary which photographers feel about their images, and I'd rather have my fingerprints on them even at their nativity as shared files. Yoho2001 (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yoho, I left you a lengthy response at the NHSC article, but thought I'd leave a follow-up here, and then saw this discussion. I probably ought to have responded here.

The thing is, when you upload your images on Wikipedia, they are freely-licensed and it is open to anyone to move them to the Commons. It's actually somewhat of a compliment - it means someone else thinks they are good (nobody bothers to transfer crappy photos) and useful for other Wikipedia projects. Timing-wise, there is no benefit to waiting if another project wants to use them (and, frankly, another editor would have had no idea that you wanted to wait a few days - trasnferring is fairly routine). You will see that many of your images are being used on French Wikipedia now, as well as the English one. Eventually, I anticipate they will start to pop up on Wikipedias in other languages. Images such as these really ought to be uploaded to the Commons in the first place. I understand why you didn't, for the good reasons you've give. But the upload process at the Commons is much the same (easier, actually), as are the implications (same licenses). It also means that you get to be the one to upload them, and no one else will ever transfer them to another project.

You can edit your images that are already over at the Commons - when you go to the image description page here on Wikipedia, click on the "description page there" link in the Commons box directly below the image, and edit away (you don't even need a Commons account).

I think it is also important to remember that the person whose name is listed next to the thumbnail of the image at the bottom of the page is merely the uploader. The uploader routinely ≠ the author on files uploaded at the Commons. The author/photographer is listed above in the image description box.

As for your edits, I responded in length both last week and today over at the NHSC article. But I would just say this. First, I apologize if I ever made you feel frustrated or that your contributions are not valued. Quite the opposite. But part and parcel of the Wikipedia experience is that others may disagree with your edits, and that's all part of the "bold, revert, discuss" cycle. This always happens when you have multiple editors that have done a lot of research on a topic - they have different views/interpretations, but usually they find their way to agreement. I did last week insert some proposed compromise language on the national historic park thing, which I think balances our two views on the issue, so your thoughts here would be helpful, and I did spend a good chunk of my weekend, including a visit to the reference library, to find a source for your battlefield information, so that it could be added (along with the information that Fralambert found about the French and U.K. precedents). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for all this. Clearly you have a zeal for Wikipedia and the time to dedicate toward it. Too bad they don't offer honorariums or half- or full-time positions. You'd certainly be a candidate. Heck, I'd apply too. I appreciate your apology. Frustration came from being put on what I saw as a rather continual defensive (even for using "U.S." vs. 'American', in one case, in an effort to specify the country). Manipulation of the photo files at their very nativity added to that. But yes, perhaps I will move all my photos to the Commons. I'd prefer my fingerprints all over my work, at least at the start of their shared file lives.

You went to the reference library? You really do have time to put into this! But I did say I believed I had a source on that and was looking for it, having read it before. Perhaps I wasn't fast enough. Again, this is not a full-time job for me. But it might have been good to let me handle it, especially given I'd indicated I was looking. Pending its discovery, I could have easily reworded the sentence to inform readers about the battlefields, without saying they stimulated actions in Ottawa. Instead, the text was deleted, and my sourcing efforts usurped. The text was later reinserted (by you) with sources (by you).

This, with other edits, and the photos too... Well, you can see how someone could get the sense that no move they made could be left to stand unless you were involved, and approved the work. (This is not the case for every single item (e.g., geographic coordinates).) Yes, this is a collaborative effort, like building a house. But it's fair to recognize a person takes pride in the things they work on, especially something they've initiated. You've done much to improve the NHS pages, indeed, and can take great pride in those efforts. Allowing others the same satisfaction would be a good thing. Yoho2001 (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing with Wikipedia. It's a collaborative effort, and that means others will edit your work. Similarly, while everyone is encouraged to be BOLD and to add new additions, new revisions are always subject to consensus. And when a new revision runs afoul of WP:V and/or WP:OR, it shouldn't be surprising when it gets deleted or edited. Without any connection to historic preservation efforts in Canada, the reference to civil war battlefields has no relevance to the article, so it would inevitably have been deleted either way. I know it can be discouraging (trust me - I have been there), but I have come to appreciate that this is process works best. There is nothing stopping you from adding additional sources or proposing new wording. I encourage you to continue your contributions, and not to be discouraged.

In terms of images, I have one suggestion in terms of your images that have been transferred to the Commons: if Framlabert has no objections, you could always upload these images to the Commons again (under different names), so that you would be shown as the uploader as well as the author, and then I could delete the existing versions (I am an admin at the Commons). It would require you to switch all uses on Wikipedia projects to the new image names, and you would need to alert me right away so I can deal with the old duplicate images. Let me know if that is something you would like to do.

Also, in terms of images, I thought you might be interested in Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 Canada. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:GibsonHouse.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:GibsonHouse.jpg, which you've attributed to www.ontarioplaques.com. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org, 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File 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. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —innotata 14:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Balmoral6.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:Balmoral5.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:Balmoral7.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:Balmoral2.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:Beds at the Inn.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks

There's actually a link next to 'undo' by every edit in a page history, as well as on diff pages. I've rarely used the feature since they added it last year, but I really do appreciate your contributions! That whole set of parks articles can fall out of date easily, especially with so many new units and changes at once! I wrote the list pages for the National Parks and National Monuments, and I have to pay attention to the news when there's a new one. Reywas92^Talk 05:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brereton Lake National Park

I was thinking about the possible source about Brereton Lake National Park. Not a direct source, but the The British North America Act, 1930 only mention Riding Mountain as land reserved for national Park for Manitoba. I try to found the 1930 act to see if the parc is mentionned. --Fralambert (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Tom Thomson Plaque.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Tom Thomson Plaque.jpg, which you've attributed to OntarioPlaques.com. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org, 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File 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. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —innotata 01:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Yonge Street plaque.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Yonge Street plaque.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org, 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File 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. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 12:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Date format

Regarding your edits at Halifax Explosion, please see MOS:DATERET. Thank you. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hertz1888. Edits made in the article lean upon traditional date expressions as used in newspapers, broadcast media, calendars, correspondence styles, et al., across Canada, and which are permitted by MOS:DATETIES. It's unclear what inspired the inversion of month and day. Perhaps you can supply its origin or rationale, but common use sees the <month, day> style employed. The other appears to be an imported form, based perhaps on Metric or computer programming requirements. Yoho2001 (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rule you cite prefers neither format over the other for Canadian topics and calls for consistency within an article, the rule I cited mentions keeping the predominant style. It is quite clear what that is. I wouldn't know about the origins or rationale. You are welcome to seek consensus for a switchover, but I fail to see the importance or need for such a change. With regard to what should be and remain in the article, I think the ship has already sailed. Best wishes, Hertz1888 (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were making it consistent, because both styles were used within the article and references. I'd support using dates as commonly expressed and spoken of, which is as "December 12, 2015". You do see the other format, but it's not predominant, and reads less intuitively. This is mainly because, when you see a whole digit in a sentence without being prefaced by the name of a month, you think of a whole number, "twelve" in this example. But we don't say or think "Twelve December Two Thousand Fifteen". We need to do a more mental gymnastics to have it make sense, a translation into "the Twelfth of December...". Writing "December 12" requires less translation, for we only mentally convert "12" into the ordinal number "twelfth", without having to add two articles. It seems more functional, which is probably why it's more common. Yoho2001 (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement vs. establishment

It's a litle old, but this list [1] have the agreement and establishment years of the national parks (some park where since established, like Pacific Rim was established in 2001). --Fralambert (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fralambert. This is a helpful reference. Some parts of this document are from 2009, it's true, but this particular page notes that it was updated in 2014. Here, Pacific Rim's agreement dates are 1970 and 1987, but there is no establishment date, which is consistent with its Reserve status. It's not a national park...yet, but it's been a Reserve for more than 45 years. It should probably appear under 'Proposed Parks'. Meantime, some parks we took as fully established appear not to be, as there is no establishment date shown. This requires further research. Yoho2001 (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said it is a little old, Pacific Rim National Park Reserve was established in 2001 with the Canada National Parks Act[2]. It is why if you check this site, the status year is 2001. The only parks who are actually on agreement are Bruce, Pukaskwa and Mealy Mountains. For the National Marine Conservation Areas, Famthom Five is also on agreement. --Fralambert (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The way I understand it, the legal description of Pacific Rim and other Reserves can be entered under the National Parks Act to be administered as if they were parks, pending land claim settlement(s). That does not make them national parks, however, as the Reserve class was set up as a type of limbo until they become full parks. Meantime, they enjoy protected status so they are not impaired, should they finally join the national park system. In any case, this augurs for breaking them out from the national parks list as Proposed Parks. The definition of a Reserve is consistent with this.

The agreement vs. establishment dates are interesting, and I appreciate learning about Pacific Rim's 2001 establishment as a Reserve. Other ParksCan sources seem to be off-base on this, so it's worth checking each one. It's great to learn about Bruce Peninsula, Pukaskwa, and Fathom Five being created via agreements. Mealy Mountains is still proposed, I think, but good to know it's based on a similar formula. I wonder why one route is chosen vs. another. Yoho2001 (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the reason, it easy, Quebec, British Columbia and Labrador don't have "surender treaty" with the First Nations living in the province. Il not sure you sould put national park reserves in a proposed list. Maybe the best is to put them in separated list? Oh, a Mealy Mountains is considered as created, since a agreement was signed in the and of July to transfert the crown land into the federal domain[3]. --Fralambert (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and please elaborate on how the lack of a "surrender treaty" affects creation of parks and/or park reserves. There are reserves both within and without the provinces you mention.

I would support the Reserves being in a separated list on the page, if not under "Proposed", to help clarify their distinction.

The news release about Mealy Mountains trumpets a new park, but talks about what it will protect, and notes that a Park Benefits Agreement must first be negotiated, and a bill tabled in the House. As we have seen for years, announcements like this are more a reflection of good intentions and ongoing processes rather than an accomplished fact. Until the bill is certified and becomes law, it's still a proposed Reserve, no matter how anxious ParksCan or its political masters might be to want to count it now. Yoho2001 (talk) 09:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take Mingan Archipelago, the Innu are actually in territorial negociation since the 1980s (but the negociation is mostly dead since 2003), since the claimed territory include the park, it's considered as a Park Reserve. For Mealy Mountains, if I understand the Summary of Land Transfer Agreement Between en Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Parks Canada, the province will transfer "transfer to Parks Canada the administration and control of the lands" within six months. It's why they put the "46^th national park" in the press release. I know there is a big difference between a project, a area of interest, take this project by exemple. If my memory don't fail me, Tursujuq National Park was a long time "area of interrest" before the goverment of Quebec finaly decide to make it a provincial park. --Fralambert (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Henson NHS 2.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Henson NHS 2.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org, 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File 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. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Yonge Street NHS plaque.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Yonge Street NHS plaque.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia: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 the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016 American League Wild Card Game, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jacques Doucet. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Yoho2001. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Yoho2001. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic medal table

This table shouldn't be sorted by number of medals. It should be sorted by number of gold medals, then silver medals, then by bronze medals. toreau (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a choice, but I resorted it according to total number of medals because that's what the text of the article says the list is. Otherwise, it would say it was a ranking of gold medals, which is something a reader can do using the sortable table. They can also sort by number of silvers or bronzes. But I agree with the article that the basic list should sort total medals. Yoho2001 (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Canada at the 2018 Winter Olympics does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Rockysmile11^(talk) 03:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple speedy deletion nominations

A tag has been placed on multiple images requesting that they be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the files appear to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted content borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think these pages should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page(s) 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 removed 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.

The above notice applies to the following images:

Please be aware that all material you find somewhere else on the web is likely to be copyrighted. Please stop uploading copyright violations. Continual violations will result in the revocation of your editing privileges. If you have any questions please feel free to ask me and I will be happy to assist you. --Majora (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These photos were nominated for deletion and, before any discussion or reply could take place, were removed from the page just 10 minutes after being nominated. If I read the timestamps correctly, they were then deleted from Wikipedia one minute after that. There was no time to reply, and the "Contest this deletion" button must have disappeared along with the files, making the above instruction mute.

The site from which all images were taken has a clear provision for non-commercial use, stating that images "...may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission from the Government of Canada, or the provincial or territorial government counterparts." Important notices, Non-commercial use, Historicplaces.ca It asks that the name of the website be identified, which was done in the source entry. If there is any issue with the license selected, feel free to suggest one which might be a better fit. Yoho2001 (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:First Geodetic Survey Station NHS, QC.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:First Geodetic Survey Station NHS, QC.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Majora (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Joliette Court House NHS, QC.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Joliette Court House NHS, QC.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

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. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Franklin stamp 2013.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Franklin stamp 2013.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) 02:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Yoho2001. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Continental Divide Trail, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chihuahua (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Residential school

Hi, not sure, but should the former Portage La Prairie Indian Residential School in Manitoba and the former Shubenacadie Indian Residential School in Nova Scotia be National Historic Site? Portage la Prairie Indian Residential School (Q62080973) is already a Provincial Heritage site and the Directory of Federal Heritage Designations is kind of too many years late about the NHSC. --Fralambert (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, and thanks for this. Both NHS’s and one NHE were designated on Sept. 1, 2020. Someone had since added the one in Manitoba, and I have added the one in Nova Scotia. I’ll add the Event, too. Meantime, I’ve been asking about how to make the red NHS box lines thinner in the template. In bright red, they pop out so much, they’re almost a warning button! Those lines could be thinner, but I’m not sure how to do that. I’ve posted this in Templates and elsewhere, for years, now. Thanks Fralambert. ~~

GFDL with disclaimers

Hi! Long time ago you uploaded some files like File:Plaque to the NPC.jpg. They are licensed {{GFDL-self-with-disclaimers}}. Perhaps you would be willing to remove the disclaimers? See Wikipedia:GFDL standardization for further information. If you would like to remove the disclaimers you can click this link and search for you name (23 files). --MGA73 (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NHS box

National Historic Site

About the box on Teahouse

Yoho2001 I couldn't find the source code. But I can help you with those boxes. As you asked to align the box below a image on the right side. I imagined it in two ways, See below↓↓↓

National Historic Sites of Canada

Did I do it in the way you asked? If not reply me.Siddartha897 (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I love the pictures! You have a good sense of humor :) I’ll play with the formatting, and see if it can work. Yoho2001 (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Yoho2001:. I'm glad it helped you. By the way the picture was a coincidence XD. I appreciate your perseverance in asking the same question for 4 years, it's insane. If I were you I'd have forgotten in 4 hours :D. Happy editing. Siddartha897 (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Tom Longboat federal marker.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Tom Longboat federal marker.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org, 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File 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 in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Tom Longboat federal marker.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Tom Longboat federal marker.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the image description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, 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. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Thanks again for your cooperation. Stefan2 (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mary Pickford historical plaque.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mary Pickford historical plaque.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Old Style and New Style dates

Annoyingly, when I edited that section a while back, I set out to add Canada but got sidetracked with trying to find the relevant article and ended up without doing so. The thirteen colonies article was all I could find, not being overly familiar with the North America set of articles. Is there an article for the twenty colonies? Your revised sentence is crying out for a wikilink. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Postage stamps and postal history of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halifax.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Latest NHS plaque style.jpg

The file File:Latest NHS plaque style.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, there is no freedom of panorama for text in Canada

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 {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} 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. --TheImaCow (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Earliest design NHS plaque.jpg

The file File:Earliest design NHS plaque.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, there is no freedom of panorama for text in Canada

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 {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} 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. --TheImaCow (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:National Historic District plaque.jpg

The file File:National Historic District plaque.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, there is no freedom of panorama for text in Canada

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 {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} 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. --TheImaCow (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Montogomery's Inn plaque.jpg

The file File:Montogomery's Inn plaque.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There is no freedom of panorama for text in Canada

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 {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} 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. --TheImaCow (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Plaque to the NPC.jpg

The file File:Plaque to the NPC.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, there is no freedom of panorama for text in Canada

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 {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} 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. --TheImaCow (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Sam Lount hanging plaque.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Sam Lount hanging plaque.jpg, which you've attributed to Alan Brown. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org, 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 {{permission 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File 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. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --TheImaCow (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable non-free use File:Battle of New Orleans stamp 2015.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Battle of New Orleans stamp 2015.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item 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 creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media 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, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]