Richard Tennant

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.
  Hello, Richard Tennant. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.--Hu12 (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Hu12 Thank you for your comments.

You have correctly noted that am close to the subject of the article, Capt. John Treasure Jones who, as you will see, died in 1993. In 2004 I discovered his typed text of what turned out to be an autobiography. Having collected photographs and illustrations, as well as background data for the appendices, I had it published in 2008 and am credited as the editor ( Richard J. Tennant, as you have traced ), although very little 'editing' was required.

The book is now out-of-print. It was virtually out-of-stock with the publishers three months ago, until a small batch were returned from the trade from being 'on consignment'.

I have read your various policies and I can appreciate that including the name of the book under 'Further Reading' could well be construed as promoting the book. As such, it should probably be deleted from here. Would it be any better under 'References' ?

As far as the rest of the article, and the other edits I have made, are concerned, I believe that I have maintained your standards for 'lack of biase', but am obviously open to correction.

Finally, I have 3 photographs of John Treasure Jones at various stages in his maritime life. These would fit within the 3 sections of the article as they are of 1923, 1943 and 1965. Would it be appropriate to include these and, if so, when would I have the clearance to do so ?

I look forward to reading your reactions. Richard Tennant (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Capt. John Treasure Jones.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bulwersator
This is a photograph stamped on the back as being by a photographer, William G Wooldridge of 2 Roberts Road, Southampton and would have been produced for press/publicity purposes by the Cunard Line.
The photogrpah is undated but it would appear to be be in the early 1960's. Considering the events of the Captain's life around this time, it is almost certainly from 1962, when he was promoted to the higher-profile position of Master of the cruise liner RMS Mauretania. Three years later he would have command of the Queens, Elizabeth & Mary
I have made several searches and been unable to trace any record of Mr Wooldridge or his business; it certainly no longer exists in Southampton or the surrounding area. The property at this address was previously solely residential and has since been redeveloped. It is probable that he ran his business activity as a freelance photographer from home.
Capt Treasure Jones had a small stock of these photographs in his archives and I am aware that he distributed several of them to his grandchildren.
I would very much prefer, if possible, not to have this photograph deleted. Thank you Richard Tennant (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

PS. If required, I could contact the Liverpool Daily Post to enquire whether they have a copy of the photograph in their archives, which should be an indication that it is in the public domain Richard Tennant (talk) 09:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:The British Rocket Brigade at Leipzig 1813.jpg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 18:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello Nick. I am in 'confusion-land' again!! When I look through the details supplied on the Summary - Media data and Non-free use rationale I thought that I had submitted sufficient 'fair use rationale'. David Rowlands the artist/owner is perfectly happy for the image to be used - his email today :
"Hello Richard, I give my permission to use it, as long as the image is accompanied with the by-line: Artist, David Rowlands (copyright). Of course it needs to be in a fairly medium or low resolution to stop people copying it & enlarging to reproduce it for commercial reasons. Best wishes, David Rowlands"
However, reading all the clauses again, it is obvious that he has not given permission to release it under a free license. It is a pity, since it really 'adds a punch' to the article. Never mind, the painting is used on a link in the references. Thanks for your help. Richard Tennant (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Capt. John Treasure Jones.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. Stefan2 (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Also: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 October 10#John Treasure Jones. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Stefan.
I have read your 'chapter & verse' statements on the discussion page. Basically you are stating that ″we don't need three different pictures in the same article″ and that ″At most one of them can be kept″. I suppose that if regrettably only one can be retained, then I would think that this should be File:Commander RNR RD 1943.
You state that there is missing evidence that WP:NFCC#4 is satisfied.
Previous publication. Non-free content must be a work which has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder, or a derivative of such a work created by a Wikipedia editor.
Both of these images have been published in his autobiography “Tramp to Queen” - see Further Reading - for which I hold the copyright.
I do not understand how WP:NFCC#9 is additionally violated.
Richard Tennant (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:The British Rocket Brigade at Leipzig 1813.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item 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 creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media 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 the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello again Stefan - you have had a busy Saturday !
Over the years I have done a lot of research into Congreve rockets and also spent a lot of effort in trying to find a similar image which correctly shows how it should be deployed. As I stated in the Purpose of use in article Other images in the article depict rockets being fired from boats, which was not particularly successful (eg Fort McHenry). This painting shows their most important and effective use throughout their history. All other images show it being used, as an American would say, ″like a 4th July firework″.
In an article which purports to present serious military historical research, I believe that this image is essential.
As mentioned in the Sourece description, the artist of this painting makes some income from selling prints of it. OK, I could create new media myself by taking my own photograph of it - however, having previously been in contact with the painter and obtained his permission for its use under copyright, I feel that this would be a breach of his trust.
Richard Tennant (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello again Stefan.
I have been in contact with the artist of this painting, David Rowlands.
The previous image was medium resolution and he wanted it to be copyright protected. He is now quite happy to have a lower resolution image (which he has supplied me with)included under 'free licence', on the basis that this would deter people from downloading and enlarging to reproduce it for commercial gain. Obviously he would want the image to be accredited to him.
Would this be acceptable to you ?
Richard Tennant (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:The Rocket Brigade at Leipzig.jpeg. 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 permissions-en@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 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-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} 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 Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Diorama and display of Waterloo medals v1.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, 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. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:RGJM - museum front.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, 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. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Replied here rather than at WP:MCQ.

Take a look at File:British Army roadblock 1988.jpg, you'll see there is a large template in blue headed "Fair Use Rationale for Operation Banner". You need to copy that template but change the article to Royal Green Jackets Museum. The difficult bit is "purpose of use". Here you have to explain how a non-free image adds significantly to the understanding of the article and as importantly why the absence of the image decreases understanding i.e. you can't add a non-free image just because it looks nice. As there must be numerous images of army checkpoints in Northern Ireland, some of which must be public domain (free) images then justifying this particular one is an uphill stuggle - especially if the soldiers in it are not RGJ.

The cap badge should be easier, the same template is needed but here the justification is about it being used a the museum logo (I hope). If not it's the same argument about context. As someone else has mentioned at WP:MCQ very few images are essential so the cap badge of the regiment is probably more important on the article about the regiment rather than the museum.

On a wider point, you've added quite a gallery to the article and while these are all free images the relevance of each to the article is debatable as none of them are expressly pictures of the regiment but rather images relating to campaigns and battles the regiment has participated in (exception, the Horsa gliders at Pegasus Bridge). The only other two images that are directly related File:RGJM - museum front.jpg and File:Diorama and display of Waterloo medals v1.jpg are both incompletely licenced. Neither states the original author and just because they are held by the museum does not necessarily make it permissible for a trustee of the museum (i.e. you) to place them into the public domain which is what you are doing unless it can be proven that the copyright holder passed the copyright onto the museum. Neither does either photo contain a statement as to how the images are licenced, I suspect you mean a Creative Commons license but both images lack the degree of precision required. It would be far easier to take your camera, take new pictures of he museum and the diorama and upload them as your own work - which is something that undoubtedly you can licence.

I'm sorry that all this sounds rather heavy when all you want to do is write about the museum but the image use policies have to be detailed and adherence to them rigorous to protect the rights of the copyright holder as well as protecting Wikipedia and re-users of content from allegations of copyright breach (As an example a German court is handing out seriously large fines - several thousand of euros - against people who re-use public domain items without the proper attribution). That is why it is vital that images are used and labelled correctly. Nthep (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the full reply.

I take your point on "you can't add a non-free image just because it looks nice".

I accept that any images relating to The Troubles in Northern Ireland, Operation Banner & Bloody Sunday do not add significantly to the understanding of the article - the links within the text should be sufficient.

The badge of the regiment was mounted on the black cross-belts worn by the officers and on the caps of the other ranks. Being a Rifle regiment in the British Army they did not have 'colours'. The cap badge of the RGJ is equally the museum logo - it is carved in stone on the outside of the museum (see Trip Advisor), on the museum headed paper and on the email of the curator. It is equally important to the regimental museum as it was to the regiment.
I will have a go at the justification, etc. If it fails on this particular image, then the museum can provide another, since one appears on the webpage for the shop.
Once accepted, would you recommend that it go back into the 'Info box' or be placed elsewhere on the page ?

With the images of the museum front and the diorama / medals, I had previously added "Attribution 3.0 license" to the image descriptions - as instructed previously. I have now added the name of the author, who the museum uses for photographic work. Being a retired officer he obviously does this without charge. Even so, the museum will be obtaining a written statement from him that he has donated both the images, as well as the copyrights associated with them, to the museum.
Is there anything else that needs to be added here?
Richard Tennant (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

To deal with the last point first, I have updated both image files in line with what you have said. For belt and braces please ask Major Pearson to email Wikipedia as outlines at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries, this will generate the unequivocal permissions.

Regarding the cap badge it doesn't matter whether you add the rationale to the existing file or upload a new one, it is the rationale that counts. As the museum uses the cap badge as it's logo, describing it as such should be enough. I'll have a look when you've had a go and feedback to you accordingly. Nthep (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

on 23 June the museum has provided a Letter of Consent from the original copyright holder to state that he has passed the copyright onto the museum for images File:RGJM - museum front.jpg and File:Diorama and display of Waterloo medals v1.jpg. I believe that by doing so they are now correctly licenced.
We now have confirmation from Paulo Santos Perneta (an administrator in Commons, but not in the English Wikipedia) that he has moved the files to Wikimedia Commons and have made the necessary modifications to the file page. They are now available at : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Royal_Green_Jackets_Museum
I believe that this now rounds off all the issues relating to this page? Richard Tennant (talk) 09:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thomas Graham, 1st Baron Lynedoch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Methven (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tennant (surname), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Tennant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Capt John Treasure Jones, Queen Mary.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. 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. Masum Reza^📞 13:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Smith's Dock Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Veronica (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks but you don't need to send an email. You can just hit the "thank" button beside the edit. I've already responded on the MCQ page. ww2censor (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi ww2censor. Thanks for your prompt response. Point taken! I have noted that the image A8492 was uploaded by user Fæ (talk | contribs) on 10 October 2017 together with all the official-looking panels.
However this upload of image A8491 is still displaying panels indicating that it could be deleted with one week. Before now including it in the page HMS Alisma (K185) I would like to be confident that it will not be then deleted.
Can these panels be replaced by those used on image File:HMS ALISMA, BRITISH FLOWER CLASS CORVETTE. 22 APRIL 1942, LIVERPOOL. A8492.jpg? Richard Tennant (talk) 11:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Thank you for uploading File:HMS Sunflower, Ships Complement 25 Jan 1941.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I see that in 2016 you added the words "where he was also head boy" to the article on Christopher Wallace. I have removed these words because I knew him well in 1956-1957 (we were in the same class), and less well in the next four years, and I have no recollection that he was ever head boy. I could be wrong, of course, and if there is evidence for the statement it can go back. (Unfortunately my school lists from 1956 to 1961 have gone missing, so I can't check.) Athel cb (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply