Pspark

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Dantesportland.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Dantes.jpg. The copy called Image:Dantes.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and remember exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 10:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Dante's

Hello, I see you need some introduction to some Wikipedia guidelines and policies. First, you need to read WP:OWN to understand that any editor can edit pretty much any article. Then follow that with WP:CIVIL so you can better interact with other editors. Then in regards to specifically Dante's you need to read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline so that you can understand the need for you to not edit that article. Then something else that you will want from other editors is to read company notability guidelines, since as it is now the article does not meet those guidelines and is subject to being deleted. Please read before you respond with we've won awards, that is not what notability is. The sources currently (other than the AOL award for 2007) do not meet the requirments for reliable sources, and the one that does is not an indepth coverage of the place to meet the notability requirments. If you have any questions, let me know or talk to an adminastrator about these policies and guidelines. Happy editing. Aboutmovies 04:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Below copied from Katr67's talk page

dante's

You are not the wikipolice and your behavior is beginning to border upon that of a self-appointed dilettante.

I was going to refrain from commenting to you, but your over-editing of the page forces my hand. Frank first informed me of your harassment months ago. The hoax tag can stay. The "media" articles did need to go. However, deleting the accolades section when there are legitimate links to AOL went too far. This is not spam. It is proof of an award. Any search of the Willamette Week archives will confirm our awards in the previous years. Or, you could just get up from behind your computer, come down to the bar and see the awards for yourself.

You might also want to take a little trip down to the Oregon Historical Society to confirm my research on the building, that way we can remove the original research tag.

That being said, if you continue to make condescending comments in the talk section, remove valid information, or otherwise engage in behavior that is contrary to wikipedia's policies, I will report you.

Focus your efforts on other Oregon-related topics, since you are the self-appointed "expert" in these matters. I'm sure there are bigger fish to fry.

Good day. I consider the matter closed and am happy with the entry as it now stands.

PP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pspark (talk • contribs) 03:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Hi Paul~

Wow. Frank must be pretty thin-skinned if he considers these edits: here, here, and here, and here (the sum total of my interaction with him), besides this cryptic entry on my talk page and subsequent conversation: on my and his talk page as "harassment".

It happens that I *am* a dilettante. Aren't you? And aren't all dilettantes self-appointed?

I felt the "accolades" section was unencyclopedic. I never said it was spam, and I never said they weren't real awards. But a section like that does begin to make the article about your bar look like an advertisement, and wikipedia isn't here to provide free advertising space. I didn't place the original research tag, but before you provided your detailed and apparently well-researched history section, the article really was mostly nonsense, and you apparently agree since you say the {{hoax}} tag can stay.

Can you please point out which wikipedia policies I have violated? And I'm confused--I never made *any* comments in the talk section. You must mean the edit summaries? Feel free to mention my actions at the administrator's noticeboard. Or else check out these other ways to work out article disputes: request for comment, mediation, or arbitration.

You seem pretty condescending yourself. I never said I was an "expert" about anything. I think this can be worked out. Usually these things are done on the article's talk page. In the meantime, you really need to read about ownership of articles (it doesn't really matter if *you* are pleased with how the article is now, because it's not *your* article--like I told Frank, you need to be prepared to have your work mercilessly edited), what wikipedia is not (including an advertising medium for your club) and conflict of interest. Another thing we like around here is civility. Try it :) Some people prefer the essay entitled Don't Be a Dick. Katr67 05:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is fine the way it is. I am going to scan the images from the Oregon Historical Society and some of our many awards to satisfy Kyle and you and walk away from this mess, rather than get into another flame war which will inevitably end in a "let's agree to disagree" situation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pspark (talk • contribs) 19:09, April 29, 2007

Before you scan and upload, you might want to make sure you received approval from the copyright holders of the images to post them online. Owning a copy of a picture only gives you the right to possess that picture, reproduction and distribution is a different stick in the "bundle of sticks" that is property law. Aboutmovies 19:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. These are public records that I am uploading (anyone can access them).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pspark (talk • contribs) 19:36, April 29, 2007

This isn't exactly a flame war

Hi, don't forget to sign your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~). I'll cop to being uncivil if you will. If you were falsely accused of harassment and threatened with being reported when you're merely pointing out established wikipolicy, wouldn't it bother you? Your additions to Dante's are interesting and like I said, appear to be well-researched. If the whole article were up to that standard, we'd be in business. I still disagree about the inclusion of the "accolades" section, but I'll leave it to the other editors to decide if it should stay. I will gently point out again, however, that it really doesn't matter whether you think the article is fine, that's up to community consensus. Katr67 21:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Phonebook1930dantes.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Phonebook1930dantes.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

copyright violations

Copyright problems with Image:Permit1921dantes.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Permit1921dantes.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Aboutmovies 20:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Permit1930dantes.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Permit1930dantes.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Aboutmovies 20:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• These are not the work of the United States government, please read the license you attached to them. City of Portland is not the US Government. Only US government work can be covered by the license you applied. Aboutmovies 20:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:StarPDX1.JPG

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:StarPDX1.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.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. 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. 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 specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 03:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

November 2019

Hello Pspark. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Star Theater (Portland, Oregon), but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Pspark. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Pspark|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. This: edit which is a venue owned by Frank Faillace and your talk page contribution at Dante's in the past suggests you personally known Frank. Graywalls (talk) 06:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Dantesportland.jpg

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

Orphaned file with no obvious value in transferring to Commons

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. Salavat (talk) 03:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)