, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
Thanks for uploading File:Andy Hill 2011.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for uploading File:Andy Hill.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
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.
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. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File Upoads
Hi,
I have been reviewing your file uploads, specifically your claims to be the original copyright holder of the following pictures :
Would you mind clarifying that and how you came to hold the copyright ? Did you for example take the pictures yourself ? Were you asked by someone else to take them ? Other than uploading them here, have you distributed them to anyone else ?
I'll just proactively add that getting the copyright holders to fill out Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries is usually the best approach, as it saves a lot of the back-and-forth we run into with permissions. Do, please, stop by if I can help. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for our note. What's needed here is not for you to add tags to the article, but to send email verification to the Wikimedia Foundation that you have permission to license these images for reuse. Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries has the address to which the permission should be sent, and it also includes a letter that you can ask the copyright holders to fill out. Once the permission letters have been received, if they are legally usable, the volunteers who respond to emails for the Foundation will add tags to the articles. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 02:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but that statement needs to be mailed to the Wikimedia Foundation, not placed on my talk page, and it needs to be mailed by the copyright holders who have given you permission. (As I understand it, you are not the copyright holder? Mtking says you told him you had consent.) The address that you should mail the permission to is at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Please ask the copyright holders to mail in that permission. Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. LoganTalkContributions 18:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AfD discussion title 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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Hill (music supervisor) 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.
Location (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Your recent edits
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts
. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
sockpuppetry. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mike V • Talk 17:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Re: Block Notice
Hi Mike and all concerned.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I believe that my repeated (and entirely transparent) efforts to communicate with Wikipedia's editors regarding the various problems cited in my articles are evidence of my sincere intentions. I've made no effort to deceive or disrupt. My use of a secondary account (Derwydd23) wasn't "sock puppetry" (I didn't know what that meant until I consulted your entry), but an attempt at a "workaround" to what I perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a hostile editor. I am sixty years old and there isn't world enough or time for me to engage in internet deception. I'll confess that a few years ago, I viewed Wikipedia as a questionable source of accurate information at best, and found the very notion of a wiki suspect. That was the genesis, by the way, of the Philby Greenstreet article. I bet a college professor friend that I could create an article about an entirely imaginary person which, if properly formatted and referenced, would not be sniffed out. The article survived for five years. But clearly, things have changed, and I am impressed. That tells me that real people of discernment and erudition, as opposed to bots, are minding the store, and I will use Wikipedia as a research tool with more confidence as a consequence. Frankly, I think you need guys like me making "useful contributions" and not sitting on the bench. Please consider my request to unblock. Thanks. Ghostrider51 Ghostrider51 (talk) 03:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
I'd be prepared to consider an unblock if you were to agree to not use sockpuppets again, and not create hoax articles. PhilKnight (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
to PhilKnight re: Block Notice
Hi, Phil. I can't access your Talk page, but hopefully I can reach you from mine. I very much appreciate the reconsideration, and am certainly agreeable to the terms of reinstatement. As mentioned, the Philby Greenstreet article was created six years ago. Different times, different mindset, and there'd be no reason to repeat the experiment. As for sock puppetry (now that I know what it is!), I'd never want to wear that sign around my neck again. Looking forward to making a contribution. Ghostrider51 (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited
A.W. Hill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walt Disney Studios. 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) 09:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To: DPL Re: Recent edits to A.W. Hill
Thank you. I believe I have addressed Wikipedia's major concerns re: citations and verifications. If so, would it be possible to remove the box tags at the top of the page? And thanks for the heads up on the Disney link. I will correct that. It should have gone to The Walt Disney Studios (division). Ghostrider51 (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Hill page move
cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history
, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is
VeryCrocker (talk) 07:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Re: Andy Hill page move
{Talkback|VeryCrocker} Thank you, VeryCrocker. Yes, I was just trying to comply with the renaming guidance on the discussion page. I'll figure out how to use the Move feature and do it properly. Ghostrider51 (talk)
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see
reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Wgolf (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
File permission problem with File:A.W. Hill Author Photo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:A.W. Hill Author Photo.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for 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 [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter
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 [email protected].
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 Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
wikimedia.org.
or 
) located above the edit window.
