GeekWriter

File permission problem with File:BrooklinGreen.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:BrooklinGreen.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created 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-enwikimedia.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 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-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image 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 uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Brooklin Green

A tag has been placed on Brooklin Green requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

File:BrooklinGreen.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BrooklinGreen.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. 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. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Problem with your custom signature

You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. A change to Wikipedia's software has made your current custom signature incompatible with the software.

The problem: Your preferences are set to interpret your custom signature as wikitext. However, your current custom signature does not contain any wikitext.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, or you can fix your signature.

Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:

1. Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
2. Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
3. Remove anything in the Signature: text box. (It might already be empty.)
4. Click the blue "Save" button at the bottom of the page. (The red "Restore all default settings" button will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)

Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:

1. Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
2. Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
3. Click the blue "Save" button at the bottom of the page.

More information about custom signatures is available at Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing how everyone sees your signature. If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Thank you. 18:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

October 2023

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Sons of Confederate Veterans, you may be blocked from editing. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The entire article is full of propaganda and largely unsourced. I agree with everything written, but there’s no sourcing, so we look really stupid and immature as editors if we can’t source facts. MRJ 13:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a view on that - I haven't read it or looked at the sources. I note that there are 64 sources listed, which is quite a lot, but I do not claim to have read them or come to an opinion on their reliability and/or whether they support the article's content. Deleting the entire article, however, and replacing it with the words 'Entire article is propaganda by all parties' is tantamount to vandalism, and not the way to go about implementing improvements. Why not go to the article's talk page and explain your specific concerns? Girth Summit _(blether) 13:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, and that comment is valid. This issue has been repeatedly brought up, yet editors like @andythegrump continue to revert back to content without sources at all and this is allowed. MRJ 13:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what content you're talking about. There are 64 sources listed in the article; you need to go to the talk page and say which content you're concerned about. If there aren't any citations to that bit, say so; if there are existing citations, explain how they are deficient. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Will do, thank you. I started a discussion about these generalities and will note specific examples later in the day. MRJ 13:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Sons of Confederate Veterans shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 14:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Doug. I have started a discussion and I will report/flag the other editor for reverting back false content. Thanks again! MRJ 15:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am capable of reading, thank you. We simply cannot write things without sourcing. MRJ 13:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)