User talk:DonJay

This user may have left Wikipedia. DonJay has not edited Wikipedia since December 2016. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Hi, DonJay! I saw your post here and thought I could help you out. While I appreciate your willingness to contribute and the hard work it must have taken to track these images down and secure permissions for them, they are unfortunately inappropriate for Wikipedia at this moment and can be deleted at any time. As Wikipedia is a free project that lets anybody copy content from it, all media must be free content - and sadly, media that is licensed only for Wikipedia's use does not meet this standard. If you have been in contact with the copyright holders of those four images, could you please ask them to get in touch with Wikipedia at permissions-en@wikimedia.org so we can work the licensing details out? Please reply on my talk page if you've got any questions. Thanks! east.718 at 03:05, February 26, 2008

I have re-added the tags as they don't have a rationale as the bot stated. As east718 has explained, permission to use on wikipedia is mostly irrelevant. All that matters is whether the copyright owner is willing to license them under a free license. If they are not, then they will need to be used under the NFCC which requires a rationale as explained in the disputed tags. One of the key things that is necessary is that these images cannot reasonably be replaced by a free alternative. As these appear to be historic photos or historic items the key issue here is whether they are really necessary for understanding the topic. For example, is it really necessary to show a photo of a CL-84 landing or a CL-89 being launched? If not, CL-84 already has free photos of the plane and I'm guessing there would probably be intact CL-89s on display in museums. In the case of Image:Dray.jpg do you know what year this photo was taken? If it was in the very early 20th century, it may very well be in the public domain so NFCC is irrelevant. Nil Einne (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been contributing anonymously since 2004 or so, so I do feel your pain regarding the changes in culture here over time. But that's another discussion for another day. :-) Respectfully, your interpretation of permission-only images is wrong - they are considered non-free for our purposes, and have been for the past three years by decree of Jimbo; this is also the reason why {{withpermission}} and {{permission}} exist as they do. I am quite tired now so I apologize for not leaving an extended message, but please get back to me if you have any other concerns. east.718 at 04:13, February 28, 2008

I'd rather you pick one of the other links on the air raid page. Otherwise, we're going to end up with a link to a disam page, which we want to avoid. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 16:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take it up on the talk page. I hit articles to fix the disam links but not really beyond that. You probably want to discuss it on the talk page where you'll find people more immersed in the topic. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 13:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a

You uploaded Image:OSsign.jpg with a GFDL tag, but said it was "released for PD" in the summary. Usually PD means Public Domain, so it looks like a mistake. Is this true? 76.117.247.55 (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For you creation of the new article Lesser Known British Comic Strips, which helps to expand the encyclopedia. Your contribution is appreciated. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are correct. The OED does not refer to any gender limitation in the term in British English. [1]. I easily found "comedian" being used to describe women in a wide range of British news sources. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Whatever may have been the term used in the past, when Carney was active, we are writing an encyclopaedia in contemporary English. So I believe the MOS guideline on gender-neutral language does apply here and the change is correct. Neljack (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of MOS would mean that terms such as "comedienne" and "poetess" would always be allowed, since they are by definition used in "one-gender contexts". That was clearly not the intention, as is evident from the discussions that led to the creation of the gender-neutral language section. [8] As the example given suggests, this exemption was intended to allow the use of masculine or feminine pronouns when referring to a group of people who were all of the same gender. Neljack (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted to the MOS talk page, which would seem to be the appropriate place to seek comments from others.[9] Neljack (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is that it varies, but that a significant number of women are offended by gender-specific language. Neljack (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone your edit on 'Old Sergeant' as it is a separate item and should not be deleted by redirecting it to 'Garratt Lane'.which should link it, as a mother article. DonJay (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. The article does not assert the notability of the topic. In general, we require reliable sources to have written in depth (not a brief mention, a listing, nor a review) about a pub. Details which have been accepted as conferring notability on a pub sufficient for it to be a standalone article are: significant events took place there - a bombing, a meeting, etc; the pub has received significant multiple awards; or that the place is associated with someone notable - though even that is dubious as notability is not inherited. I prefer not to delete articles on pubs; I would rather direct the title to the nearest appropriate article, including whatever information is sourced and encyclopedic, per WP:LOCAL. As you feel the pub is notable enough for a standalone article, I will wait several more days for you to research into the pub to find if it is indeed notable, and then to mention that in the article, along with the appropriate reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and WP:A7. Regards SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neiher of the two Wiki suggestions (Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and WP:A7.) refer to places or buildings, so your criterion for inclusion is not relevant.. As a coaching house and its over two century age is sufficient for warrant its inclusion. It has also won the award for best community pub (2012) (Now added to Wiki Page). DonJay (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming back to me. I think you're improving the article. Well done. As regards organisations, I was thinking in terms of the pub being a business, as that is how the article addresses the topic. There is no content regarding the structure, and the award is a business award, not one for the building or architecture. I understand your feeling that old buildings are inherently notable; however, buildings over two hundreds years old are quite common - we also have some trees that are that old, or older! ;-) And pubs themselves are often very old - see Oldest pub. I'll take a look later to see if I can dig something up on the Old Sergeant, Wandsworth. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look, and there's nothing more available regarding the pub than what you've already got. The most information is in the book Inn and Around London: A History of Young's Pubs. The book is published by Youngs themselves, so while it provides information, it doesn't assist toward notability. The only mention of the pub, outside of Youngs themselves, is in relation to the community award, which only attracted the interest of the local paper. The more I look into this, the more this appears to be a pleasant but fairly average local pub - pretty much as Youngs themselves describe it. If you're still in disagreement with me regarding the pub's notability, I'll list it at AfD to see what others think. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The date I have for when Youngs bought it is 1836 - when Youngs bought several pubs from Earl Spencer. The date is from the revised 2004 edition of Osborn's book (now called Forever Young's). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Old Sergeant, Wandsworth 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/Old Sergeant, Wandsworth 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. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The formating you have used is non-standard and may confuse an admin closing the discussion, I suggest you reformat like this:

• Keep. The guide to AFD lists Notability for People, Organisations, Music, but not either places or buildings. The page refers to a place of entertainment that: 1) is over 250 years old; 2) has an award for being the best community pub in Britain in 2012; 3) has an original example of a 19th Century Coach House; 4) Is an example of a small but popular "Local". Any one of these reasons shows notability. Consequently the application should be rejected. DonJay (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regards SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, and the WikiLove. I apologize if my talk message seemed brusque; it's a standardized message and wasn't meant to convey any hostility towards you or the subject. In fact, I've realized that I was far too hasty, and have cleaned up the article a bit; hope it meets with your approval. Trivialist (talk) 06:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, according to the GeoOttawa application, the entire strip is known as Byron Tramway Park (click on layers, and then park and it will label the whole thing). Upon further investigation, the park does indeed begin at Holland (sorry for editing that out) and ends at Lincoln Heights on the other side of the parkway!

I understand that colloquially the strip might be called the Byron Strip, but I think it's best to use the official name. If you can find a proper reference of it being called the Byron strip, that should definitely be in the article as well. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, did you go to the Geo Ottawa link I gave you? If you click on the park it gives you the full borders. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and make the edits. I think I just added some population figures. The other stuff was put there by another user. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ottawa's Green spaces along the Rideau River, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Strathcona Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of neighbourhoods in Ottawa may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |[[Civic]]||[[Carleton Heights]]||[[Central Park, Ottawa|Central Park]] Hospital]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Garfunkel's Restaurant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bath. 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) 08:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Parasole.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) 23:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DonJay. 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]

Hello, DonJay. 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]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:P1081.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. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

orphaned image, no encyclopedic use

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.

Also:

• File:OSsign.jpg

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:F86.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.  ★  Bigr Tex 03:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Couriercover.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) 17:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of British comic strips 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/List of British comic strips until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]