User talk:Doublethink64

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Duplicate images uploaded 2 Re: Image deletion 3 BNP and Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 4 Image copyright problem with Image:3wnlpposter.jpg

[edit] Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:.britishworker1cover.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Britishworker1cover.jpg. The copy called Image:Britishworker1cover.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 (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image deletion

I deleted it because it was suspected copyright infringement, but it's OK now since you've asserted that you're the copyright holder. east.718 at 12:28, November 25, 2007

[edit] BNP and Rehabilitation of Offenders Act

You removed some information about Kevin Scott's convictions from the BNP article, saying that the information violated the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. As far as I can see, though, the Act says that individuals do not have to reveal convictions after a certain time if asked about them, but it doesn't say anything about third-parties (i.e., Wikipedia) talking about spent convictions. Could you say more about why you think the information you removed is unlawful according to the act (note that even if it is, that doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is hosted by a US organization on servers in the US)? And why just that information, and not the information about other individuals' convictions in that article? Thanks. VoluntarySlave (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think that if you study the act you will see that individuals who have their spent convictions revealed are entitled to bring an action for defamation if they can show malice. In this case malice is pretty evident from the context. There is a defence if a public interest can be shown. If you look at the discussion page of the BNP article you can see the cogent argument put for this and my own counter-argument. As to why I have amended this and not the others it is because the Act depends on the sentence. In the case mentioned I know that the sentence was a conditional discharge and therefore what the time limit for the ROA is. I don't know the details of the other cases. I understand, however, that two of those others mentioned are no longer members of the BNP so the question there is one of accuracy and relevance. As to American servers this is not my point. I'm a UK citizen concerned to prevent unjustifiable breaking of UK law through edits and argument. I'm not taking legal action. I think that the principle behind the Act is a good one and I see no reason why it should be broken. If people don't repeat offences for some years surely we should let them move on and not drag up the past? Opponents of the BNP can surely find other cases not covered by the Act if that Party is as they assert. (Doublethink64 (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:3wnlpposter.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:3wnlpposter.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 escription 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. --23:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)