User talk:Jdudding

Welcome!

Hello, Jdudding, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Simply south (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

Your recent addition to Finchley has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Grim²³ ★ 16:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Stonebridge_demolition.JPG

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Stonebridge_demolition.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reloaded the file, this time with copyright status.

Replaceable fair use Image:London_Opportunity_Areas.png

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:London_Opportunity_Areas.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only known source of the information in this image is the image itself. Therefore, only by copying it exactly (the borough borders are from 1965, but are a sub-set of those from about 1880, and so presumably non-copyrighted) could another image be made.

October 2009

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Mill Hill has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Grim²³ ★ 01:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary seems both accurate and appropriate.

The summary was 'recaptioned image' but the syntax that hid the image was removed at the same time. This made the image viewable again, effectively undoing the last editors edit without explanation. (BTW pls sign your comments with 4 tildes like this ~~~~)Grim²³ ★ 12:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London_Opportunity_Areas.png

re: deletion of en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:London_Opportunity_Areas.png

"freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information"

Please explain how this could be found, since the only source of the data is in the image.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdudding (talk • contribs) 12:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.

The data is the route, not the map, and a freely-licensed map which could be created, or a textual description of the route, would both do. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please say that again, using different words. I am trying to understand. What route? Jdudding (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The map is intended to indicate the route of the railway. You can describe the route of a railway in words, or by a railway template (see Trans-Dublin), or by a map. The non-free image wasn't required to indicate the route of the railway. Stifle (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The map shows mid-2000s strategic planning in London, and is a historical document, of interest long-term, particularly since it seems to have been suppressed, and no-one claims ownership now. It has nothing to do with a railway (it is used on some railway pages, but also other pages that have nothing to do with railways. e.g. the "London Plan" page, and "London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham" page (due to White City) - any borough that has an "opportunity area" or "area of intensification" anywhere in London in fact. (It had not been added to ALL such boroughs' pages yet, though, particularly in east London.)

The 'London Plan' is also a live issue in London, with the draft version made public in a few weeks. This image illuminates that debate for anyone reading the "London Plan" page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdudding (talk • contribs) 15:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end? This is really important to know who said what and when.

I can't agree with that, I'm afraid. You're welcome to open a listing at Wikipedia:Deletion review if you feel that the deletion was not in order. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

I've been looking at your edits to several articles about north London. You appear to be involved with the Campaign for Better Transport (UK) which engages in advocacy in the areas in which you edit. You may have conflict of interest please read the guidelines. Grim²³ ★ 17:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Sorry me again. External links can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept to a minimum. A link to general site should not be added to an article on a more specific subject (please see WP:ELNO). In my view the reason for this guideline, which may seem to exclude useful links, is so that wikipedia does not become just a guidebook or collection of links. Grim²³ ★ 14:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Map_of_Brent_Cross,_London.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Map_of_Brent_Cross,_London.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted to fix this.

goto File:Map_of_Brent_Cross,_London.jpg click edit, to add the recommended licensing information copy the following text to the very end of the page.

== Licensing ==

Grim²³ ★ 03:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Orphaned non-free image File:Predicted cars at Brent Cross.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Predicted cars at Brent Cross.png. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Stonebridge plan in 1967.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Stonebridge plan in 1967.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude (talk) 04:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Files missing description details

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 08:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:West London Business.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:West London Business.gif. 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) 18:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Coalition for a Sustainable Brent Cross Cricklewood

The article Coalition for a Sustainable Brent Cross Cricklewood has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTNEWS, fails WP:SIGCOV

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]