User talk:PeteBobb

Speedy deletion nomination of De Heesterboom, Leiden[edit]

Hello PeteBobb,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged De Heesterboom, Leiden for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, →Σ σ ς. 19:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really that you ran afoul of conventions, but the page contained nothing more than an address. If you know more about the monument, you can add it to the page. An empty article isn't very useful to readers. →Σ σ ς. 20:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrights[edit]

PeteBobb, Please stop adding your pictures to the Dutch Wikipedia because according to the metadata they are copyrighted (Copyright status: Copyrighted; Online copyright statement: www.1st-class-photo.com). And also because you are messing up some of the articles. Biccie (talk) 08:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.

Hi PeteBobb, thanks for your contributions to wiki. You don't have to ask an OTRS permission for your own photos, only if you are not the copyright older, what it's not in this case.

Yours sincerely,

Wilhiano Guilherme

(above comment added by PeteBobb) Who is Wilhiano Guilherme, and why would you add a comment and sign his name?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.

..Biccie did not like that I contributed professional photos to wiki that I captured with my camera and I copyrighted before releasing the rights to wiki users to use the photos under the Creative Commons license.

On a separate forum regarding copyrights where Biccie's concern was discussed, the suggestion was made that all users posting copyrighted photographs on wiki MUST have OTRS permission from <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org> before uploading their own copyrighted photographs to wiki.

I submitted my copyrighted photos to <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org> on [Ticket#2012100510001279]

I received an e-mail from "Permissions - Wikimedia Commons" with the response posted above to my request for OTRS permission to post photos I own the copyright to.

Who is Wilhiano Guilherme? They are the person who responded to my e-mail to <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org>

Why would I copy-and-paste the response from "Permissions - Wikimedia Commons"?

So people will know I take copyright law and wiki guidelines seriously and people viewing my page won't assume that I am posting stolen material on wiki in violation of copyright laws.

Just as I only list one (1) instead of ten (10) separate sources for an addition to an article, I did not include the background to the e-mail cut-and-paste because I felt brevity and conciseness were valued higher by most readers than long-winded explanations which only a few people prefer.

I am sorry that my assumption resulted in causing confusion, but I am still comparatively new to wiki and I am not thoroughly versed in the unwritten wiki traditions used by editors.

Just as I learned from Biccie's comment that some editors only like photos on the Right Margin and think that putting a photo gallery across the Bottom of a page or having a photo on the Left instead of the Right margin is "wrong" and "messes up the page".

And, for example, photos of the Maresdijk Windmill on the Maresdijk Windmill page must actually be captioned "Maresdijk Windmill" rather than assuming readers will know the photo of an uncaptioned windmill accompanying the Maresdijk Windmill article is actually a photo of the Maresdijk Windmill.

(These 'conventions' are NOT written in any wiki guidelines, but creativity appears to be frowned on by some Conservative Editors who feel wiki articles must have a certain 'look and feel' and that art must follow their unwritten rules to be considered acceptable! So I learn...)

I hope this response fully and completely answers your questions, but if not, please feel free to post any follow-up questions you may have.

PeteBobb (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's all a bit weird, but I kind of get it. Thanks for taking the time to explain it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I used the Darryl Issa Talk Page, Bbb223 REFUSED to discuss the matter with me about why they were starting an 'Edit War'.

Bbb223 may be in violation of the three-revert rule, and unilaterally deletes truthful information without waiting for consensus on either the Talk Page or Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. A Neutral point of view was used, and this is well sourced information. A question on which sources might be preferred was ignored. This contained no original research.

PeteBobb (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]