Jamiet99uk

Image:Kevan jones mp.jpg

Are you legaly able to release this under the GFDL.Genisock2 17:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

YES - I am an employee of Kevan Jones MP. Our office owns this photograph and I am allowing Wikipedia to use it.

I'm afraid that permission for wikipedia only is not considered free enough for use on wikipedia. You need to give permission for reuse by anyone for any perpose including modification and for profit. A standard method of doing this is to release the Image under the GFDL.Genisock2 (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Kevan jones mp.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Kevan jones mp.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 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-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: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) 12:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rocksoc

The article Rocksoc has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

October 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Lewis Ferguson. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. GiantSnowman 09:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

You failed to provide a reliable source to verify the information. Not vandalism, agreed, but not useful either. GiantSnowman 17:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Bit much to accuse me of "vandalism", all the same. What I added was accurate information.