User talk:Dma124

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Dma124, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you enjoy it here and decide to stay. Here is some information that you might find helpful: -controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Dionne Anyone.jpg. The copy called Image:Dionne Anyone.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and remember exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 14:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] License tagging for Image:Dionne79.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dionne79.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Sangerharris.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:SangerHarris.jpg. The copy called Image:SangerHarris.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 00:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Donaldsons.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Donaldsons.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. 00:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Broadway.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Broadway.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. 01:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:LSDonaldsons.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:LSDonaldsons.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sanger-Harris

I love it! Never would have thought to scan a credit card. However, you probably will need to include some fair use information ... there's an automated system (bot) that's going through removing images whose fair-use justification isn't spelled out clearly. I don't entirely know how to do it, but just be prepared. :) Lawikitejana 20:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dionne Warwick albums

from User talk:Mattbrundage#Dionne Warwick albums:

Imagine that you are holding in your hands a copy of Warwick's Make Way for Dionne Warwick and you are asked to describe it. You would most likely not begin with "This was...", but with "This is..." I actually own a couple of old Warwick albums and would definitely describe them in the present tense.

The age of a published work or object should not be the determinant of the tense used to describe it. For instance, For Whom the Bell Tolls, Rome, The Bible, even Stonehenge are all described in the present tense, despite all being older than Warwick's albums.

A better determinant of tense would be whether or not something or someone is still in existence. Albums in general (like many other objects) will exist in perpetuity and should be described in the present tense. Conversely, historical objects and people that no longer exist should be described in the past tense.

One more small thing... I noticed that in the first sentence of your note, you referred to the album pages as your own. -- Mattbrundage 14:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I was going to explain why the present tense should be used in the lead sentence of articles describing object that exist in the present, as albums do, but it seems Mattbrundage has done so above, probably better than I would have done. His comments are absolutely correct. In using was to describe something that exists in the present, you are making a grammatical error. Strobilus 03:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

Just so you know, the software will detect linked dates so that they come out according to user preferences: [[1991-08-09]] will come out as August 9, 1991, 9 Aug 1991, or 1991-08-09 depending on how things are set up in Special:Preferences. So there's no need to mess around with linked dates or convert them to other formats or anything, unless of course they're unlinked. —Scott5114↗ 06:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read that. You don't need to fiddle with the dates. Let me know if you have any questions. —Scott5114↗ 06:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Before changing the categories in David Yurman, please check to ensure they are valid categories. In the case of your recent edits, these are not valida categories as the spelling settled on for jewelers is different. -- Whpq 20:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Dionne

Hi, I created a quick article for Presenting Dionne Warwick which I encourage you to flesh out a bit if you can. Also, I made a proposal on Talk:Here, Where There Is Love about moving the article to Here Where There is Love and would appreciate your thoughts. Cheers Strobilus 21:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Case of Rape

You recently reverted me on this article. Based on your edit summary, you obviously think that the way the article was written was ideal. Note, however, that phrases like "a gripping film", "the smarmy rapist", and " a woman so arrogant, melodramatic, and unscrupulous" are unacceptable considering our neutral point of view policy and the Manual of Style. I hope you understand that the point of Wikipedia is to function as an encyclopedia, not to "do justice" to anything. We report verifiable information - that is all.

You also re-introduced various formatting errors and run-on sentences in your blanket revert. This is why reverting content edits is generally a bad idea, as multiple types of changes are usually all in the same edit. I urge you to read some of Wikipedia's featured articles on films, to get a sense of how we write about movies here. Natalie (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! Natalie (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Maasb.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Maasb.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:NewDonaldson1.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:NewDonaldson1.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Dionne Gold 1.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dionne Gold 1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Thuresson (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Maasb.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Hi Dma124!
We thank you for uploading Image:Maasb.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)