User talk:JohnJHenderson

Welcome!

Hello, JohnJHenderson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Thanks for your additions to both Mount Lafayette (New Hampshire) and Mount Washington (New Hampshire)! Just so that you know, you don't have to post additions on the talk page...that's what the "Edit Summary" box is for. It's located just above the two checkboxes (This is a minor edit and Watch this page), which in turn ar just above the "Save" and "Show Preview" buttons. simply type in what it is you changed. That way, its easier for other editors to get an idea of what was changed when. (If you click the "History" tab on top of this page, you'll see that my Edit Summary for this edit was "Welcomed JohnJHenderson") Thanks, and once again: welcome! jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 23:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I completely agree about labeling the peaks. The problem is - I don't know them. Tried to look them up when captioning it. Can you point me to a reference? Debivort 16:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your guess about the perspective of the panorama is exactly right. I'd very much appreciate the peak names and ref. Of course, you are welcome to modify the caption without consulting me, if you'd rather. Thanks Debivort 17:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello JJ. Thanks for the pointer to the book. Based on the names you gave me, I came across an online topo map that led me to call the peaks a bit differently though. Here is its (very long) URL: http://www.mytopo.com/map.cfm?mapparams=zone%3D19%26easting%3D290153%26northing%3D4884654&CFID=30163628&CFTOKEN=94894370 I should have also let you know that the pic was taken from the valley floor, rather than the summit, which contributes to my sense that the summit of Flume was not visible. I've updated the image and caption with the names as I interpreted them, but would very much like to know if you agree with my assignment. Thanks, Debivort 00:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aah - now it's up. I think I must have edited and previewed it without saving last time. Debivort 17:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Yep, that's the right way to contact me. The terms and conditionss link you showed me say that the content may be used for, "personal, educational, non-commercial, non-profit use". Wikipedia can't use 1) personal only licenses, 2) non-commercial licenses nor 3) non-profit use only licenses. We use the GFDL which allows use by companies (for profit). Do you want to relicense this work into the GFDL? If so, then after we confirm that you own the copyright (done either by you putting up a page on your site, thus proving you control it, or by me sending you an e-mail [listed at the site] and you responding.) the content could be used. Confirmation, sadly, is needed because we have had people in the past either lie or be mistaken about the copyright situation. Again, welcome. Broken S 00:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As to your "blemish on your record" comment, don't worry no one here is judgmental. Many many people make this mistake and once this is cleared up the page will return to normal. I hope you donate much more content to Wikipedia in the future. You might want to read Wikipedia:Copyrights (even though it is boring). Broken S 00:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll email you from an address at your website (john at johnjhenderson dot c). Wikipedia articles are actually quite long sometimes so condensing them might not always be required (see Wikipedia:Article size). Also, rememeber not to just copy and paste your articles over. It is imperative that you wikify your articles (apply standard wikipedia style per our style guidelines). Unwikified articles are harder to edit and improve and don't help Wikipedia all that much. It would be nice if you added a line saying that you license the content into the GFDL (or any free license, like cc-sa-by) on your copyrights page. So it is clear (and other people could help you move content over from your website). If you intend to only release some articles under the GFDL then I'd write that you have released some to us on your copyrights page. 00:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I sent the email. Broken S 01:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, you needn't be concerned. Add Template:Confirmation to the talk pages of all the articles you upload (i'll do it for you on the first one). That will indicate that you have confirmed as the copyright owner. Some people may still be confused and tag it as a copyvio. Just change it back and show them this page or the talk page with the template. Cheers! 01:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a pain at all. If you think it's wikified enough (it looks pritty well wikified to me), then just remove the tag. It's a fairly subjective standard. The only other thing might need to be done is that you might want to add some links on the page (like his birth place or clubs or anything where an article exsits or should exist which someone might want to click on). Broken S 02:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What you did was configure the alt text. To make it appear as a caption you have to add "|frame|" (which adds a frame around the picture where the caption sits) or "|thumb|" (as i did) which makes it a thumbnail and adds a frame. If you haven't looked at it already, Wikipedia:Picture tutorial can be quite useful. Broken S 03:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks very nice. Maybe one day you could submit it to peer review and it could become a featured article on the front page. Broken S 03:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I don't really know much about the subject, so it's hard for me to suggest a title. We don't even have an article about White Mountains Art or even better Art of the White Mountains (similar in naming to Visual arts of the United States). Perhaps you should create it there with a section about the history. Then if the section about history gets to big it could be moved out per Wikipedia:Summary style. Also, you can get more people to notice your articles if you link to them from others. If you were to make "White Mountains Art" a link from White Mountains (New Hampshire) (I assume it's those white mountains you're talking about) would be useful and would increase the profile of your article (and pagerank). The title you suggested wasn't bad though (there is no need to write and art and artists when art will do just fine). Don't worry to much, the name can always be changed later with little effort by using the "move" button. Broken S 03:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Might I ask why you created Template:Campbell? I know you might be typing things like that often, but templates should be used for temporary things (cleanup tags or deletion tags), things that will change, or thing that we want to keep track of. I don't see why we would want to keep track of what articles cite that source. What you might want to do (if you don't want to continualy write the same thing over and over again) is make a page in your user namepsace (say at User:JohnJHenderson/Campbell. Then you could write {{subst:User:JohnJHenderson/Campbell}} to substitute in the reference whenever you need it. The same goes for all of the templates you made. If you haven't all ready read it Wikipedia:Template messages might give you some ideas about what templates are used for. Most likely if you leave the setup the way it is someone, maybe me, will put them up on WP:TFD. Broken S 20:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

not a problem at all. In case you're unsure, you can request deletion by adding {{db|creator requests deletion}} to the template. Remember that even if you use the templates in your userspace you should use the "subst:" (as in substitute) prefix because it helps take the load off of the servers. 22:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I understand your question and the answer is: no that can't be done. Instead you could make many templates with only a number difference like User:JohnJHenderson/1 User:JohnJHenderson/2 (remember that any page can also function as a template if you put the page name in brackets). It seems you are already doing somthing like this. Why do you want your reference templates to be updated when you make changes centraly? Shouldn't they be complete when you add the template and you can subst them in? Doing it your way puts a slightly higher burden on our servers.Why can't you just copy and paste these references every time you need them? Administrators (or sysops or janitors as some people call them) are people granted with more functions than standard users. Administrators can delete articles and block problem users. See Wikipedia:Administrators for more details. I notice your actions by looking at Special:Contributions/JohnJHenderson and my watchlist. You can ask for help from other people at WP:HD or (if you have IRC]) WP:IRC. I don't mind the questions, I love to help (although I am not always at my computer). 00:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

If you wrote the template right the first time you could just subst everything in and if you do happen to make a mistake going through and fixing it wouldn't be so hard. I don't think there is a search powerful enough to find those references for you but you could just go through your contributions page or make a list of the articles on your userpage. Anyways I just remembered that we have Template:Book reference (I assume those are books you are citing, we also have more such templates here). You can format them all the same way by using that template (see Template talk:Book reference for instructions on how to use it). You can get a spellchecker by getting the google toolbar (it has an integrated spellchecker I think it might only works for firefox though. Broken S 15:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Link just the first. Unless you haven't mentioned it in a while and the person might be confused as to what it is. Broken S 01:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm turning in for the night soon, but I'll try to take a look at it tommorow. (Note that I am not an expert on this subject, or even art history in general) In the meantime you might want to submit it for peer review (they can sometimes be helpful with spelling, tone, formating and the like). Also take a look at my comment on the article's talk page. Broken S 03:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The standard style for headings (see this, yeah we have lots of pages describing style) is to lower case everything except the first word and proper nouns. For some reason I thought "The Willey Tradegy" is a proper noun. It probably should be lower case. Broken S 00:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll defer to you for issues of actual content (as I've said before, I'm no expert on this subject). Our naiming policy concerning capitalization is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). It says, "Convention: Unless the term you wish to create a page for is a proper noun, do not capitalize second and subsequent words." Whether or not White Mountain Art is a proper noun (is the article about an art movment or just art in that area [the article didn't make that clear to me]) I'll leave to you. It'd be best if you could get permission from the photographer. No need to rush yourself in making changes. There is plenty of time (the article is quite good already). Broken S 00:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, was White Mountain art based on text from your website? If so that template needs to be placed on the talk page. Broken S 02:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is the text close enough so that someone could pass by and think that it was copied from the site? If so then a template telling people not to worry might be appropriate. If you have changed it enough then don't worry about it. Broken S 03:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly I don't know of many examples. The issue is, did you take (or crib off of) any of the text from your website/article. If so then we need to do the same thing we did with Talk:Benjamin Champney. For example the paragraph

Beginning in the 1830s, the landscape painters of the Hudson River School "sought to define America and what it was to be an American. Artists of that time saw themselves as scientists making documents that expressed Christian truths and democratic ideals" (Keyes 1996:91).

Seems to be taken from here (which is not the same as the first site the text was taken from). Which you wrote. You need to be sure that you own the rights to that text (sometimes writers forfeit the rights to ther text, I have talked to writers before who didn't realize this) and then we should add a template (like that on the other article) saying that you have relicensed that part of the text from that site into the GFDL. This is to insure that no one else comes by and says that you stole it (or for the publication to come by and say you stole it). As to the naming of the company article, yeah naiming things like that is hard. The official policy concerning page names is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions. I don't believe we have a standard for company names. It's best to use whatever is most common (or else whatever the official name is: is the company called Data General in tax forms?). Both are fine though (as long as Wikipedia:Redirects are available for the alternate names). We had a similar debate at the Google article (it was previously called Google Inc.). It seems someone else has already answered your other question at the help desk. Broken S 20:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You could upload all the pictures you want to talk about to the commons (commons:Main Page) and then use internal links to them. That way we avoid making external links (which look ugly), but let them see the article if they want to. For more information about the commons see Wikimedia Commons. On commons you could make a page just full of pictures and paintings and link to it at the end of the article (for example see commons:Leonardo da Vinci). I agree that showing them all would get crowded. Just show the best examples (your discretion) and link the others (preferably at the commons, but external links work too). Broken S 04:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have mixed feelings about Artcyclopedia. What I like about it is that it provides direct links to specific examples of an artist's work in online museum collections. So, if I want to see a comprehensive selection of John Kensett's work in museums, the direct links are all there. It's much more efficient than searching on Google (though I see they have some broken links). Their list of available American artists is sufficient, but not great. What's not nice about Artcyclopedia is the commercialism, as you mention. I've never added it as a link to any Wikipedia articles myself--I'd rather see the best images right in the article, or have direct links to the best museum images in the article, rather than linking to a bunch of links. --Worldofdew 00:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For your great contributions to Wikipedia, I award you the The_Exceptional_Newcomer_Award. Broken S 02:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To get any page deleted (including user pages) add {{db|reason}}. You can type templates or any syntax in a way so that it does not expand (you don't need to write "bracket") if you use the <nowiki> tags. You can get them by clicking the picture of a W with a cross on top of it (above the edit box). Broken S 21:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the reason you were confused was that the person who gave you the advice used a template to avoid using the nowiki tags. The Template:tlp helps autoformat templates when discussing them. You should have copied the plaintext (not the wikicode). Broken S 21:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can't have spaces in html code (as far as I know) so instead we use underscores. For example World_War_II = World War II (look at the code to see what I changed). The underscores however shouldn't be visible in the file name at the top of the page (it should appear as spaces, if not show me what image you are talking about). Sorry it's one of those annoying limitations in the software. Broken S 23:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can learn about gallery tags here and here. I don't think you can get more pictures across, it's pretty automatic. By the way if you want to include tags in your messages use the nowiki tags I described above (or it'll get messed up like it was). I don't know if you are aware of this, but you can link to pictures without displaying them by including a colon ":" in front of the word image. This way you can discuss an image and link to it without displaying it (if you are having space issues). Cheers! Broken S 01:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I tagged it for you. Thanks for checking on that. Broken S 00:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

forwarding the email would help. Broken S 00:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I got it. Sorry I forgot to check my email. Thanks. Broken S 16:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the image was taken before 1900 and no major (copyrighatble) revisions of it were made since, then you can probably assume it has entered the public domain because it is so old. I would upload it and write everything you have told me and add {{PD}}. The only thing I'm not sure of is whether the "CURTEICHCOLOR REPRODUCTION FROM KODACHROME ORIGINAL" changes are enough to get a new copyright. Is the picture in color (did they colorize it)? This nifty table, says that works published before 1923 are in the public domain. Broken S 00:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The way to defeat vandals is detailed at Wikipedia:Vandalism. First use the warning templates {{subst:test}}, {{subst:test2}}, {{subst:test3}}...{{subst:test5}}. If they continue to vandalize, report them to WP:AIV, where an admin will block them. You could also report them to WP:VIP. To remove vandalism follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Revert. Remember not all bad edits are vandalism, some are user tests ("Can I really edit this webstie?") or ignorance about our policies. Broken S 15:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

if the vandalism is very atrocious you can skip those steps and just alert an admin or immediately list on WP:AIV. Broken S 15:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your question on my talk page, I just happened to notice an anon user edit in the "Recent Changes" page. As far as I know, the best way to deal vandalism is to keep your eyes open and when you see it, fix it as quickly as possible. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 03:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...are listed at WP:WSS/ST. Cheers! -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, no e-mail needed. You're trustworthy. Broken S 00:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's nice to see someone else around here who is interested in 19th century American art...it's been a backwater of Wikipedia. As for images, I agree that the images don't look good stacked one on top of the other, all on one side. Frankly I think one of the best examples of how to use them that I've seen is your White Mountain art article. I like how the images are interspersed, some on the left and some on the right, and that they relate to the adjacent text. My personal opinion is that galleries work best if you have more than three images in them; I think they also risk interrupting the flow of an article if they're put in the middle—I like text that wraps around images, but that's just me. The Bierstadt article makes it difficult to wrap text because it's not very long. I don't feel too strongly about it though; I just write, and leave the images to others :) --Worldofdew 01:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked out Wikipedia:Stub? Under the heading "Essential information" there are some guidelines about when an article is considered a stub or not. It's basically a judgement call, which you're welcome to make anytime: when you feel that it's no longer a stub, you're probably right. I hope that helps. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can't put White Mountain art in that category because they are in different projects. You could create an article commons:White Mountain art and put pictures and captions there (like we have a page commons:Africa and a category commons:category:Africa). That isn't necessary though. Broken S 17:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I just finished looking at Bob Gibson (musician). It's pritty good. I have just a few issues.

• The picture says that it is PD because there was no copyright statement. Despite the popular belief one must no mark things as copyright for them to be copyrighted. Things are assumed to be copyrighted. Is there some special reason you think it is in the public domain?
• That article is too long to be a stub. Stubs are 1 or 2 or 3 paragraphs. Not 6+. Stubs are just critically short articles that need attention.
• Your writing style is more flashy than most articles here, but I'm not sure if that is a bad thing (people are always complaining about Wikipedia's writing style). It could stand some toning down.
• It'd be nice if you'd put the ISBN of the book reference you used after the reference. Wikipedia automatically wikifies ISBN numbers (eg ISBN 666666666)
• It could use some more external links.
• As you know, I know nothing about this man and I can't comment on the content or accuracy of the article.

I'll take a look at the second article soon. Broken S 14:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After looking over Mount Chocorua (New Hampshire) my only question is why it isn't named just Mount Chocorua since it doesn't seem there is another Mount Chocorua with an article to conflict with it. Broken S 02:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone could move it. I didn't/haven't because I don't know if the move should be done. If there are no other mountains with the same name it should certainly be moved. If there are others (they just don't have articles), a disambig page may be in order (with red links for the others). Broken S 23:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No , you shouldn't be using a template to keep the content identical. The Tennis article should be using summary style (summarize the scoring article). The content doesn't need to be word for word the same (and shouldn't be because then the tennis article would be needlessly long). Does that answer your question? Broken S 21:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besdies adding "~~~~"? That's what I always do. Broken S 01:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any special method. I'd just login, erase the IP and replace it with your sig (or make a comment below yours saying "that's me"). Broken S 20:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I glad you're around to help edit the Tennis articles. :) Noelle De Guzman 13:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the Public Domain tag to PD-Old on this image. This is a minor point, but Benjamin Champney died in 1907 (99 years ago). The photograph came from his book, published in 1900. Since the photograph was of Champney as a young man, we can presume that the photographer has been dead for 100 years, but we can't be certain. It seems this is a very gray area. In the US, the image is clearly in the Public Domain. Shouldn't the tag remain just PD? I'm just trying to understand what tags are appropriate. JJ 17:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize it was such a close call, I have changed the tag to {{PD-US}} now. The generic {{PD}} tag is deprecated, so that's why I am not using it. People have decided it's better to use more specific tags for PD images. they are actually listed on the Template:PD if you wanted to look at them. Does that new tag seem right to you? If not feel free to change it and/or let me know whatever you want :D - cohesion★talk 22:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you about this. I don't know enough about Josh White, in fact (though his son has a website that discusses him), but I think the onus is on the editor who added the text just a day or two ago. S/he doesn't seem to have responded yet. Badagnani 23:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links are the biggest pain in the ass in wikipedia. Now that the site is so popular, everybody comes flocking here seeking traffic, and balancing between spam/commercial crap and useful/informative sites can be tricky. - DavidWBrooks 22:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do occasionally take some time off wikipedia to sleep. I added GA. Although I'm not convinced the present formatting is the best at least it shows the images are utilized in the article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, as I said on the talk page I'm fine if you change it back to whatever seems best to you and the main content contributors to that article. The real problem is that high image to text content ratio of that article. Ideally, there should be more text to disperse the images in, thus eliminating the need for a photo gallery. You might consider moving some of the images to Wikisource, as an alternative to a photo gallery. I don't actually have that much experience with articles relating to art, so please don't feel the need to take my suggestion. It was just that: a suggestion. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see response NTK 21:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if you're interested or not, but I've created a "User Box" for people in Center Harbor. You can see it at User:SatyrTN/Userbox/CenterHarbor and/or add it to your page by putting {{User:SatyrTN/Userbox/Center Harbor, NH}} on your home page. See Wikipedia:Userboxes for more info.

Thanks! -- SatyrTN 04:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JJ, I linked to The Old Man of the Mountain because of Gerry's painting of this view, of which he is known to have made several copies in different sizes. The best known and largest, to my knowledge, is the one said to be in the collection of the Smithsonian Institution. You might know of others. Thanks for your note, and let me know if I'm wrong on this score. Regards Jack Bethune 12:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John, yes, I will offer some published references to the Gerry view I mentioned, but it will have to wait until I return home. Am typing this on a hotel computer a continent away from my home, but should be back in touch soon after 9/20. Regards, Jack Bethune 00:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the question you raised on my Talk page: I am a long-time admirer, student, and occasional collector of American art, with particular interest in the Hudson River and White Mountain Schools, as well as in American Impressionism. As for Gerry, I know of no image of him. How he managed to escape being recorded is not only puzzling but also amazing. With best wishes Jack Bethune 18:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message; I appreciate your contacting me. I strongly believe that in articles about art or artists, readers need to see plenty of their work and without having to jump to another page. The work itself is generally the most important thing about the subject of the article, and nothing in writing can replace what's lost if the reader doesn't see the art work. You mention (I think) two competing values: good layout and (if I'm interpreting you right) perhaps overburdening the reader with lesser works. As to the first, I personally don't even mind crowding a page with pictures because I think they keep the reader interested and pull the reader further into the article, even when they crowd the layout, but I realize I'm in a minority on that. As to the second, I think if a picture is down further in the page, adding it to the article can't hurt the article. I think the Noroton picture (the pine tree and rock) is beautiful online, particularly when you see it enlarged, and the other picture with the frame in it (I think that's the Darien shore picture you're referring to), while not the best as a picture, has a lot of merit to it. If we could get better Kensett pictures, I'd agree to replace these.

But I think I have a better solution: Plenty of art-related articles here have "galleries" with pictures at the bottom. With galleries, the pictures don't disrupt any layout, and the galleries are at (or near) the bottom of the page. This gives you your layout and me my inclusion of pictures. I don't know how to create galleries, but I can learn. What do you think? One other thing I do like that you may also are somewhat larger versions of the pictures than we have right now on the page. I think that gives casual readers a better chance to see how beautiful the pictures are and keeps them more interested. If there are fewer pictures butting up against the text, perhaps they could be a bit larger. Noroton 16:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just learned how to do it by copying what was done at the Jan Vermeer article. If you like this, just copy and paste it to the Kensett page and remove the other versions of the pictures. This isn't my ideal (I'd like bigger pictures), but I think it meets your goals and mine:

• 
  The Old Pine, Darien, Connecticut
• 
  Study on Long Island Sound at Darien, Connecticut (1872)

Noroton 17:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John,

Was that you who just messaged me? If so, you weren't signed in. I took a look at Kensett work online through a Google Images search (I searched for "John Kensett" but then just "Kensett" which was better. Here's a link to that second search (1,700 results! But not all are the painter):

[Kensett]

If you think it's a good idea, the gallery could be expanded, and either you could upload the pictures or I could help. I don't mind whether or not the Darien picture with the frame stays or goes, although I think the Noroton rock picture looks good. My original interest in Kensett was the fact that he used to live near where I live and I could use some of his pictures to illustrate the Darien, Connecticut article. Noroton 20:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already cut the caption in the gallery box, above. I see nothing wrong with a longer caption to give more information to a reader, although they generally are better with a larger picture. I think the information you use for the captions is fine in this case, so long as the information is on the picture's image page (and it is).Noroton 20:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, cut the Darien painting then. I'd like to put a gallery at the bottom, though. What do you think of that idea? Would you want to upload some images to it (I'd be happy to do that work myself)? If not, would you have suggestions as to what paintings would best go into it? I'm thinking at least six works. Noroton 20:45, 8 December 2006

(UTC)

Sure - I'll be glad to add a credit to the picture - sorry about that. -- Sturgeonman 00:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference on the gunning stuff. It's interesting, but if you look at pages 10 and 11 of The Official Encyclopedia of Tennis (the 1980 edition, more or less), they have a long article about how the scoring system came directly from the old Court Tennis scoring, which had been using 15-30 etc. since the 15th century. Since Court Tennis was still being played at Hampton Court (and still is, for that matter) by the same types of upper-class people who began playing lawn tennis, it's gonna be a hard sell to say that there is any other origin for the scoring. It might be worth a footnote, however, to say that the LTA offers an alternative theory, which is such-and-such. I don't think Wiki ought to go on record, however, as saying this is anything but an alternative one. And I gotta say, then in my 51 years of hanging around the tennis world, and studying it up to point, I've never heard of this before. But it's still interesting. Best for the New Year! Hayford Peirce 16:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got you confused with someone who emailed me a couple of days ago with more nonsense about the gunning stuff. When I replied above I was in a hurry and still thinking of that. Your LTA link, obviously, is just saying what earlier editors have written from time to time, that the system might come from the times of the clock. I see no reason why this can't be put in the article, along with some caveats such as "one theory is that etc." And as I said above, even the gunning stuff could probably be footnoted. Hayford Peirce 17:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems perfect to me what you wrote; now we'll see if the "gunner" theorist ever comes back.... Hayford Peirce 00:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, take a look at the "List of artists (yet again)" discussion recently added to the Hudson River School talk page. Two subjects for consideration: (1) What standards should be used to manage/limit this list? and (2) Based on those standards, Robert Weir -- in or out? Thanks, Jack Bethune (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, thanks for voicing your opinion about whether this marginal figure belongs on the list of greats of the HRS. It's clearly evident that he does not, despite the contorted logic and special pleading demonstrated by some WP contributors. Weir's presence on the list is not a big deal, but it does indicate that WP is still subject to drive-by edits by cruising diletantes who crave WP turf more than WP integrity. Fortunately, WP now has a List article to park minor artists like Weir who don't belong on the "selected list" of HRS masters. If you wish to take further action regarding Weir's deletion, however, you will have my support. Jack Bethune (talk) 11:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thoroughly agree that the "List" page is the only proper place for this marginal HRS artist. As I also pointed out, that's because Weir fails to meet more than one or two of the five important criteria for admission to the "Selected" list. Let's all ensure that only important HRS artists are included in the article's Selected list. That will mean quickly and firmly reverting all unqualified artists like Robert Weir who occasionally will be mistakenly added to the Selected list. Jack Bethune (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John, you're probably right that any effort to clean up the Selected list will be resisted by those who want to treat it as an all-inclusive roster of HRS artists, both major and minor. For some reason, the word "Selected" does not register with editors as an activity involving screening or discrimination, typically involving some identifiable standards, so the whole point of originally challenging Weir's presence on the Selected list seems to have been lost, at least so far. Even the recent comments by your WMS co-author, who did much to bolster Weir's qualifications for membership in the HRS, somehow managed to avoid the question whether Weir is important or representative enough to belong on a short "Selected" list in the main article presumably aimed at highlighting the most famous and academically accepted HRS artists of all time. We should remember that the discussions to date have involved two separate issues: (1) Weir's place and membership in the HRS, which have been adequatly resolved in his favor. And (2), Weir's presence on a "Selected" list of HRS artists, which does not appear to be supported by any definitive published source to date, notwithstanding obscure 60-year-old museum catalogs reproducing Weir's one or two examples of noteworthy HRS art. Everyone but you and I has chosen to ignore issue #2, which deals with the clear meaning and implications of "Selected," ignoring its essential requirements for noteworthiness and importance. As a consequence, I suppose it would be better to retire from this discussion and spend our time on more productive pursuits. Agree? Jack Bethune (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone following the history of the HRS page will note that a furious effort was mounted by one editor to have Robert Weir added to what was then labeled a "Selected list of Hudson River School artists." Initially, that editor was unable to cobble up any decent published references to establish Weir's qualifications for membership in the HRS, let alone his prominence in it. After others provided the sought-for references, thereby formally establishing Weir's marginal membership in the HRS, the editor demanding Weir's inclusion was so grateful that he/she added them like footnote-jewels next to Weir's name on the Selected list. All that effort, of course, could not erase the embarrassing fact that Weir is nowhere considered a prominent HRS artist (even his most ardent fan-editor admitted Weir was a "minor" figure). So, to remove this embarrassing impediment to Weir's place on a "Selected" list, the same relentless editor insisted on removing the restrictive word "Selected" from the list's heading. Now, thanks to that editor's ludicrously illogical maneuvers, there is NO restriction whatsoever against any HRS artist's name -- however marginal or unimportant -- being freely added to the currently shapeless and formless list without standards that now occupies an important place in the main article. Life is too short to waste time battling egotistical and incompetent editors, so the HRS page and its embedded list have lost their interest for me. Jack Bethune (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you should add footnotes to the article and then resubmit it for GA status at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. It looks like some great work which is only being held back by the lack of in-line citations (I believe the standards have changed since last February). I don't think I'll be able to help you with the actual citations themselves, though, as this is a topic signficantly out of my area of expertise. Cheers, Savidan 19:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, the more footnotes the better. I'm no longer qualified to review GAs (because I've been away from that project since their standards began to increase) but I would definitely say that there's no such thing as too many footnotes. I didn't see any other major problems. Savidan 00:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John, the addition of a "selected" list of artists is always a good one for any WP article on important schools of art. How it's labeled is a matter of judgment, but in this case I'd seriously consider labeling it "Notable White Mountain artists." WP has some guidelines regarding "notability," which should help you police the list. I wish the HRS list had been labeled "notable" as well. Would have cleared up the intent of the list better than "selected." By the way, your work on White Mountain art and artists is truly outstanding, and a superb addition to Wikipedia. Best regards, Jack Bethune (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John, would be glad to contribute a review and to recommend GA status for your fine work. Not sure about the GA review procedure yet, but will read up on it and get busy soon. I agree that FA status is the next logical step and will help any way I can. Best, Jack Bethune (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John, congratulations on producing such a fine article. It was a pleasure to review it and recommend it for GA status. I think the minor items needing touchup are now in good shape, and other WP editors are invited to offer their ideas for any further improvement. As for Wikilinking, the WP guidelines suggest that duplicate links to the same name or subject can be made, for example, if appearing far apart in separate sections of text. Therefore, linking first references can be supplemented by linking within later sections, for example, embedded lists or photo captions. The standard practice seems to be to avoid duplicate links within narrow text areas (e.g., same paragraph), but freely add duplicate links when helpful to WP readers who might miss a distant first reference. While not mentioned, as far as I know, adding name links within photo captions is always helpful to WP readers, even when the name is linked elsewhere in the text. Adding birth/death dates will also always be helpful next to first references, but I don't think they would be essential for an embedded list of artists. However, there's no harm in adding them to the listings as well. Again, the WP guideline seems to be, "What's most helpful to readers seeking information?" Hope these thoughts prove helpful. Best wishes, Jack Bethune (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John, the latest GA review provides numerous items that would add minor improvements to your article, and I'm glad to see that you have begun adding them. My comments disputing some suggestions should not prevent you from implementing some of them as well, insofar as you may agree with them. There are, however, several suggestions that you will want to resist for the good of the article and the sake of WP readers, and it appears you have already drawn attention to these items in your latest comments/additions to the article. I completely agree with your positions in each case and will add my support in arguing for their preservation. I believe that your latest reviewer has only the best intentions, and that the GA process (even if taken to the dispute/review stage) will ultimately prove beneficial to the article in the end. Everyone involved wants to encourage as many GAs in WP as possible, and I assume good faith behind the actions/words of everyone involved thus far. Your recent efforts to comply with all reasonable suggestions are admirable and exactly the thing needed. On the few unreasonable or misguided suggestions, your stance is also the correct one, and for the reasons given: What is the best approach for achieving WP's purpose, and what presentation offers WP readers the best educational and editorial solutions? Fortunately, WP is also cognizant of those important questions, and its style and content guidelines make many nuanced provisions for their flexible implementation. In the end, I predict that intelligent discourse and reasonable solutions will prevail over any serious editorial dispute that may exist now. Excelsior! Jack Bethune (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that I replied (at some length - I am not known for my conciseness!) on my talk page. All the best - Geometry guy 15:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John, have offered what I hope are helpful edits to these reference/reading sections, and not unwittingly burdened you with the need to revert unwelcome errors. I used published references as well as online bibliography sites in making these suggestions, so I apologize in advance if they conflict with your citation experience or first-hand published evidence. I'm encouraged by the rapid pace of progress in clearing GA hurdles thus far, so please pour on the coals and go for the finish. Jack Bethune (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at your footnote no. 2, which refers the reader to Consuming Views, pp. 46-47. That reference to pp. 46-47 works perfectly with my hard-bound copy of Consuming Views, which appears to have been published at "Concord, NH: New Hampshire Historical Society, 2006." Does the reference to pp. 46-47 work equally well with the origin you cite, Historical New Hampshire, Volume 60, Nos. 1 & 2, 2006? Just wondering if "pp. 46-47" applies equally well to what appears to be two different editions. My mistake again? Thanks, Jack Bethune (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, have touched up footnotes. Added quotes for cited article titles, corrected typo in book publication date for Keyes. Look OK? Jack Bethune (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John, I got your note and have replied at the article talk page with some suggestions. As Moni probably could have predicted, I wasn't able to restrain myself from leaping in to edit the references despite your comment that you weren't requesting I do so :) I hope my comments are helpful; I've watchlisted the article so I'll see any responses there. Maralia (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I don't think that "notable" has a very objective basis, but in my opinion he is quite "notable". Is his inclusion here a mistake? ciao Rotational (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there again, I don't think that "large body of work" is a good criterion of "notability" - I started an article on him, which means that I feel he's sufficiently well-known to merit a WP page. No, I don't know any of his White Mountain paintings, but you say that you know of some, so that the question is really irrelevant. Finally, I think that you are perfectly entitled to control your personal White Mountain website, but WP policy encourages participation by multiple editors and strongly discourages ownership. ciao Rotational (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John, the recent edit by this editor was mistaken, so I've corrected the unfounded assertion that your web site on White Mountain Art has a commercial purpose. Thakinthakin appears unaware that your educational site was scrutinized by a number of WP editors evaluating your article for GA status. Unsurprisingly, their decision was to declare it a valuable link for WP readers wanting to learn more about White Mountain Art. Jack Bethune (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Josh White Stamp.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 'file' 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 "File" 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. ww2censor (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Josh White Stamp.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Josh White Stamp.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John - Sorry, I was offline for a few days. You can email me the image at nhgallager@comcast.net. See you, --Ken Gallager (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John - The only sure way to deal with vandalism on an article is to keep the article on your watchlist. When I see an edit that is vandalism, I revert the edit(s), then check the IP address to see if they've made any other edits that need to be cleaned up. Then I leave them a message telling them their edit's been reverted. In the case of your article, the vandal had only made one other edit, so was either a new user or was using a new IP address. Regular vandals usually get an escalating series of warnings on their talk pages, and eventually an administrator can block them from editing. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case I wasn't clear, I have White Mountain art on my watchlist, so as long as I'm not taking a Wiki-break, I can revert vandalism on it in a decent amount of time. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:New Hampshire Historical Society headquarters and library.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 the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Henry Burkhardt III is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Burkhardt III until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ^Falling_Gravity 17:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JohnJHenderson! Your additions to New Hampshire Historical Society have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Willaim F. Paskell. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and it is promotional and reads like an advertisement. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Samuel W. Griggs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.whitemountainart.com/about-3/artists/samuel-w-griggs-1827-1898/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Russell Smith (artist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.whitemountainart.com/about-3/artists/russell-smith-1812-1896/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of your recent edits has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page Draft:Willaim F. Paskell has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appeared to be a direct copy from https://www.whitemountainart.com/about-3/artists/william-f-paskell-1865-1951/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning. Further violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy will result in you being blocked from editing.-- -- Diannaa (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]