User talk:Amcaja/Archive9

Indonesia FAC...
Thanks for the comments on the FAC. Yes, prose has been identified as the main problem. I fear more people will now comment too - but, we will work on that.

As for the more specific comments, I have a few questions and a couple of disagreements - maybe you would be happy to discuss here, then i can reply succinctly in the actually FAC? Is that OK? thanks. Merbabu 01:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC) It seems (to me) that you are talking about two issues here:
 * Table of contents
 * (1) the way the actual TOC is presented near the top of the page, and
 * (2) the actual overuse (or otherwise) of sub headings.

For the first issue, there is a simple template that can limit the number of levels of headings that actually appear in the TOC - i would agree with you if you were suggesting that we simply limit this to one level. As for the small headings in the govt section (executive, parliament, judiciary, etc), I can see where you are coming from, but I actually put them there to make it clear what the paragraph is about. btw, note that these smaller headings don't appear in the TOC. The first two paragraphs; if the headings are removed, then it would seem natural to combine the paragraphs, and then the distinction between the two different topics is lost. Merbabu 01:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a little of both, actually. Take a look at other featured articles on countries, especially recently promoted ones like Japan and Cameroon. Neither uses any heading level beyond a top-level == header, so it's unclear why Indonesia has to do so. The sub-sub heads in the Indonesia article are particularly ugly ("Executive", "Parliament", etc.) because they introduce such short sections. Our readers should be able to figure out that a new paragraph often discusses a new idea, so I strongly believe these sub-sub heads are redundant.
 * By the way, I'm about halfway through a copyedit of the article. I can't promise that I'll ever finish it (I have to do taxes this weekend), but I'll give it my best shot! — Amcaja ( talk ) 02:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

OK - firstly many thanks for the copy edit - hopefully you might have time to do more - and I might correct you factually if necessary, but I will let you know for your thoughts. And I will check the minor heading issues. It's a bit scary thought FAC, we are getting conflicting opinions sometimes on and off the FAC page. GAH!!! lol Merbabu 02:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In line citations
I actualy disagree with removing in-line citations from the lead, but I am open to your suggestions on why I might be wrong. Firstly, i agree totally that nothing should be in the lead (including cites) that is not in the text - I will confirm (and fix as necessary). However, much of what is there has been challenged before - particularly by many editors concerned with NPOV (or rather their own POV). It is much simpler to simply put the cite in the text, and I've read that cites can go in as necessary (but i can't find this now in WP:LEAD) These have been specifically requested over time, or they resolved debates over content inclusion, thus I fear removing them IMO opens the article up for bigger problems.

But, I am happy to hear your thoughts. I am game to remove them if we must - i just suspect bits will then get challenged again.Merbabu 02:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Brian, I've been bold and removed these in-line citations. If they are challenged or have cn tags thrown in, I will refer them to the main. thanks. Merbabu 16:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Prose
This is such a subjetive thing. BUt, you have highlighted specific valid concerns which need to be dealt with. Essentially consisitency is an issue (commas, ENGVAR). Yomangani, for example, is making mostly improvements, but a few aren't IMO. What do you think of "however"? I've always been taught that it should never be used to open a sentence, and I write accordingly.Merbabu 02:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

'Contemporary issues'
I can see your point. The section was created as a 'neat section' (not dumping groud - lol) to cater for all the criticism that comes towards the article Indonesia particularly from (my fellow) westerners and charges of NPOV. I will look into integrating it into other sections. With the specific question of seperatism, I'm not sure putting it into the military section is the best way as it is more than a military problem. Needs some thought. What about the terrorism section? Where could we put that?

A general fear regarding the FAC is that people may have different opinions, and I'm not sure whether I (and others) should jump too quickly to implement changes, particularly when they are contradictory. And who says simply cos one reviewer has an opinion it should be implemented (although yours seem most valid - really!)? Merbabu 02:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

btw
I'm holding off editing including your changes as I fear i might give you edit conflicts. Are you editing? Can i go ahead by sections? Merbabu 02:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead and edit as you see fit! My own edits to the article will likely take place this weekend sometime. As for your intelligent concerns above, I'll try to get to them soon. (I'm at school now and working on an article of my own at the moment.) — Amcaja ( talk ) 03:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Your copy edit - thanks
Thanks a lot for your copy edit. I did make a few changes though for accuracy but this has probably re-introduced clumsiness into the prose. If possible, could you please have a quick check? Can you flick through the changes and edit summs, starting with this one - it would be nice to find a way to express it 'more proper', but maintaining accuracy (which is sometimes subtly changed). Merbabu 21:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done! The bit about trade shaping history I'm a bit unsure of. It's difficult to try to tie the idea in with the ancient history being discussed and the idea of perpetuity implied. See what you think. — Amcaja ( talk ) 02:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Latest - Indonesia
Ah - i've gotten tied down - new job and exams all at once. I sort of killed myself on the article over the weekend, now catching up in real life. I will look closer tonight hopefully. Thanks for your continuted interest. I didn't find any references for the cities - it's kind of common knowledge. One exception would be my (2004?) 'Lonely Planet Indonesia' - would that suffice? thanks Merbabu 22:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good to hear that things haven't stalled out. And sure, Lonely Planet would be fine. — Amcaja ( talk ) 23:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

after some more work...
Brian, I spent some time on your most recent suggestions and believe I have answered them appropriately. Please have a look at the FAC page when you can. kind regards. Merbabu 05:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * PS, i had a really good go at sorting out serial comma usage. I hope it is OK. Merbabu 05:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good to hear. I'm computerless this week due to a strange display problem, but I'll print the thing out from work and take a last look. I look forward to crossing out the rest of the objections! — Amcaja ( talk ) 01:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks
Thanks for all your suggestion for Indonesia. They have made it a much better article. And thanks for helping me keep motivated! Sure, FAC needs to be tough, but it doesn't have to be unpleasant - thanks for helping keep it fun. Merbabu 01:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference formats...
Regarding the reference format, where we have used a reference a number of times and cited different pages (ie a book) we have indeed used this shorthand method. I can see the advantage of it for books used over and over - but on the other hand if it's just a single reference, one must check the notes, then check the references to get the full citation. Although i agree, the notes section in Cameroon looks very tidy, one still has two check to lists. Anyway, i don't mean to be argumentative, rather just looking for the best result - the attention the article is getting is great. (I am for example in the process of removing the citiations from the lead once I've made sure they are in the main). many thanks - have a great weekend - (and respond when you can!) Merbabu 06:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK nomination
Hi, I've nominated an article you worked on, Dance in Cameroon, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know where you can improve it if you see fit. And hey, I see my nomination of your Western High Plateau article went through too! MeegsC | Talk 01:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * He he . . . Looks like both of us nominated dance in Cameroon for DYK! I like your suggested blurb better, so I've moved mine under it as an alternative. Thanks for the interest in these articles! — Amcaja ( talk ) 01:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Chad
Hi Brian. Since I've shamelessly plagiarized your Cameroon article (sorry for this, but I needed a FA model, as I had never previously attempted and Cameroon was the closest good country article with similarities to Chad :-)) to rewrite Chad, I was curious to hear if you had any spare time to give me your opinion on the article. Ciao,--Aldux 22:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, great to see so much good work on that page. I've printed it out and will try to give it a thorough look this weekend. Would you prefer I post comments here, your talk page, or Talk:Chad? — Amcaja ( talk ) 02:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a milion Brian, I really needed the opinion of somebody knowledgable of the region :-) As for where to post the comments, I'd say Talk:Chad or Africa-related regional notice board/Peer review/Chad, so that tey'll be visible also to other editors. Ciao, and thanks again.--Aldux 17:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Lucky Charms
Hello Brian. I have reverted your edit to the Lucky Charms article; references have been requested since November 2006, so I believe partial removal of questionable content was the right thing to do until we can provide reliable sources. Please leave a quick note on the discussion page of the article if you have any questions regarding this. Thank you, Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 04:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Karmichael Hunt
Will you peer review Karmichael Hunt. That would be much appreciated.

Article:Karmichael Hunt Peer Review:Peer review/Karmichael Hunt

Thanks

SpecialWindler 07:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but my time is too limited at the moment. :( — Amcaja ( talk ) 22:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Football in Cameroon
Hi there,

I've noticed all the amazing work you have done with Cameroon lately and I wanted to suggest an article to write if it so interests you. I am working on creating articles for 'Football in country X' for every African country. If you could contribute to an article on Cameroon (one of the most important ones, IMO) I think Wikipedia would benefit greatly. Thanks and keep up the good work--Thomas.macmillan 23:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, Thomas. Unfortunately, I don't have much in the way of sources for that topic except for stuff the relates directly to the Cameroon National Football Team, and then only a little bit. Feel free to write the article yourself; don't feel like you have to hold it for me. You've done a great job on the other entries in the series, so I have no doubt you'll do the same for Cameroon. — Amcaja ( talk ) 22:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Bird species English names ARE scientific names
btw - most bird species English names are not truly "common names" or "vernacular names" in the sense that they've just evolved naturally from the language. These are standardized, formal English names for specific species, selected and approved in the same way and by the same associations of scientists, as the Latin names for those same species. Sure, there are some species names that have been part of the English vernacular for centuries (e.g. Bald Eagle or Rook). But for every one of those, there are hundreds of species whose formal English names did not exist, or were not universally used, in their exact current forms until they were established by one of the official ornithological societies in the past half-century or so. And these names are invented or changed at the same time as the Latin names. Check any one of the List of birds by region to see what I mean about the precision of these names.

The English names were standardized for the same reason that we use Latin names: to avoid confusion, and to enable discussion of specific species without needed to use the Latin names. I recall reading an article lamenting the loss of many colorful English vernacular names in the standardization process (including alternate names, regional variant names, etc.), but I can't find it, nor any references on line right now. As far as I know, only ornithological associations maintain these standardized formal English species names. The fact that mountain lion, puma, panther, and catamount are all acceptable synonyms for cougar, is a major argument against capitalizing cougar. I hope that helps clarify. Fredwerner 15:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, Fred. I understand the argument, but I still contend that common names, no matter how specific they are, should not be capitalized (with the exception of proper names used in common names, like a hypothetical "Smithson's sparrow" or what have you). Common names are, well, common, not proper, nouns. I dare say that most manuals of style back me up on this. — Amcaja ( talk ) 22:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Daffy Duck
Brian, I'm confused. On Talk:Daffy Duck, I came up with an idea for the images, and you said it was okay. But when an IP user (e.i. me, having forgetten to log in) did it, you reverted it. I kept the heading image as it was, per your request. Please explain yourself. Supernerd 10 19:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you removed portions of the text as well. For example, this entire passage was cut: "Daffy would also feature in several war-themed shorts during World War II. Daffy always stays true to his unbridled nature, however, attempting, for example, to dodge conscription in Draftee Daffy (1945) and battling a Nazi goat intent on eating Daffy's scrap metal in Scrap Happy Daffy (1943)." I have no problem with image changes, but I will restore any deleted text. Feel free to try again. — Amcaja ( talk ) 22:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

U2
Hi Brian - Following on from Indonesia, I am now looking for external copyeditors for the U2 article. We want to go for FA but criterion 1a is again most likely to be the one to trip up the nomination up. You were of great assistance on Indonesia and the U2 article could really do with some fresh eyes for copyediting and other suggestions. What do you think? --Merbabu 12:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The dancer
Thats a really good article there. Its amazing the range of articles covered on wikipedia. Was this dancer gay by any chance? - that image of him is pretty stereotypical of one -very camp!!!! Keep up the good work anyway. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you" Contribs 10:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliments! Hmm . . . I'm not sure we can say for certain what Diamond's sexual orientation was, and I wouldn't try to interpret too much from the illustration. At any rate, according to a letter circulated against Diamond by P. T. Barnum, he had "overdrawn the money due him to the amount of $95 and during the last week expended a hundred dollars in brothels and haunts of dissipation & vice." Make of that what you will! — Amcaja ( talk ) 11:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

WAF
Posted a draft at User:AldeBaer/sandbox. —AldeBaer (c) 17:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at my second round draft. —AldeBaer (c) 14:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply here. As I said there, you (and others) are most welcome to edit the proposal at my sandbox. —AldeBaer (c) 22:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder that my sandbox still holds my proposal. I also notified Deckiller, because all debate seems to have died down without consensus on how to proceed. —AldeBaer (c) 02:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * D'oh. Been swamped. Will look in the next couple days. Sorry! — Amcaja ( talk ) 09:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Chad FAC
Hi Brian. Following your advice, I've submitted the article to the FAC process. Sorry for awnsering only know, but I've long been in vacation, and have only returned a couple of days ago. Ciao,--Aldux 00:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good to hear! I'll try to give the article a final polish sometime today (hopefully); I noticed a few typos as I read over the "History" section a few minutes ago. — Amcaja ( talk ) 00:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Clean Pastures
Good work! :) I'd love to see an article like that make it to FA status. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! There's a bit more information lurking out there (in sources I mention at Talk:Clean Pastures), so once these have been consulted, I'd definitely consdider an FA run! Unfortunately, it could be some time before I return to the States and access my in-storage library. If you've got access to a good library, though . . . . :) — Amcaja ( talk ) 09:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

happy 4th
hey brian

happy july 4th

the blackface article actually changes regularly, so i don't think prior restraint on edits is the way it works there.

adios CarlosRodriguez 03:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:2nd_South_Carolina_String_Band_promo_shot.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:2nd_South_Carolina_String_Band_promo_shot.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 10:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

bold
Sounds like an idea. Anyone can revert it and comment on it. And after all, the threads have been there for quite some time now. I'm going to put something to the effect of "revert at will, but please at least comment on the talk page" in the summary. —AldeBaer (c) 10:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, done. Let's hope people will join the debate. I also posted to the talk page, so you may want to take a look at it. Thanks for your input so far, by the way. —AldeBaer (c) 10:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good deal. Fingers crossed! — Amcaja ( talk ) 10:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Good Job

 * Arigatō! I'd like to thank all the people who made this possible: Steve Jobs, the makers of Google Books, God . . . . :) — Amcaja ( talk ) 02:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Chimps
I considered removing that addition, but for all I knew it was a diamond in the ruff as far as information goes. By the way, congratulations on getting the article on the main page! Cheers, Picaroon (Talk) 01:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! As for the chimps thing, it looked to be correct, but the no source citation thing bothered me. And it's beyond the scope of a broad country article to give such detailed information on one particular animal. I could just as easily add equally detailed information on elephants, gorillas, antelope, brush-tailed porcupines, or any number of other species. Best to not get so persnickety in the main Cameroon article, in my opinion. — Amcaja ( talk ) 02:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Cameroon
Hi Brian,

I see Cameroon has made it up to featured status... were you a major factor in that? If so, congratulations! I wish I could get Rwanda the same way, but the article is a big mess right now and I don't have as much time for Wikipedia as I used to. Ah well... SteveRwanda 12:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Steve! Yeah, I largely rewrote the Cameroon article from scratch. Don't get overwhelmed if you really want to tackle Rwanda. I just took it one section at a time ("History", "Politics", "Demographics", etc.) and did it over a period of two or three months. That made it so the workload was tolerable! Good luck, and let me know if I can help out. — Amcaja ( talk ) 12:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations for reaching the main page! I also wanted to thank you for all the incredible help you gave me with Chad: I've just discovered it's been made a FA!:-))))))))) Ciao,--Aldux 23:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I noticed Chad's promotion yesterday (I think), and I meant to send you a message of congratulations. So I guess this will have to suffice . . . Good job! Hopefully it won't be too long before Chad sees the main page, too! — Amcaja ( talk ) 23:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Image formatting
Hi, Remember the dot. I re-reverted Br'er Fox image formatting changes because they are in keeping with the Manual of Style. The MoS reads:


 * The current image mark up is, for landscape-format and square images:
 * [[Image:picture.jpg|thumb|right|Insert caption here]]
 * and for portrait-format images:
 * [[Image:picture.jpg|thumb|upright|right|Insert caption here]]

I can't find any good explanation for what the "upright" marker does, but it seems to adjust the size of the image so that it takes up roughly the same area as a horizontally-aligned image. — Amcaja ( talk ) 23:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected. Even so, I would prefer removing the "upright" keyword to allow for a better side-by-side comparison. If the 1881 image is too small, it's hard to compare it to the Disney one. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Charles_Lancaster_portrait.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Charles_Lancaster_portrait.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  01:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Harmon_Drew,_Jr.,_portrait.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Harmon_Drew,_Jr.,_portrait.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 10:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:FICT rewrite
Hiya. We have the concepts down and it's just a matter of presentation. You might be interested in participating at the bottom of WT:FICT. Also, did you get my e-mail from a few weeks ago by any chance? &mdash; Deckiller 18:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up; I'll check it out. I got your email and thought I had responded (to apologize for my late reply and to ask if the problem was still there). I guess you didn't get it? :/ — Amcaja ( talk ) 21:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think I got it (my AOL e-mail has been a little crazy lately, sadly); it's not a major issue anymore, methinks. &mdash; Deckiller

I think I'm going to be bold and implement it. Pandora's box will be opened :) Any thoughts about it? &mdash; Deckiller 12:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Twa
I had the authors authority to reproduce that letter and he was very excited about it being published on the internet, but couldn't see it because you had deleted it. DO NOT DO THAT AGAIN it has really annoyed me because now I have to type it out again.
 * You didn't cite any sources, which is why I deleted the text. If you want to reinstate it, you don't have to retype it. Just look at the history of the article (click the "History" tab) and click on your last version. Then click edit. You can either save this page as is or you can copy your text and repaste it into the current version of the page. Please cite your sources this time. Good luck. — Amcaja ( talk ) 22:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Tense Discussions
I think that your views dhould be expressed in the Harry Potter Project, as in-project guidelines seem to leech outwards fromt hat source. Currently, the idea is that in discussing say, Albus Dumblore article, they refer to the character's actions prior to the books (his youth, duel with Grindelwald interaction with Tom Riddle) in the past tense, whereas that which occurs in the books are in the present tense. i think this sounds fairly logical, but you might want take a gander at some of the reasoning for changing that, and maybe help me understand how to interpret the WAF caveats a little better. Thanks in advance, - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Whew! I was thinking you were going to lead me to some sort of high-tension discussion, not something about past vs. present tense language! :) I've replied at the Harry Potter Project and hopefully clarifiied some issues. Let me know if you'd like me to comment somewhere else as well. — Amcaja ( talk ) 22:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol, that was the play on words, Brian. I saw the post, and I think the logic is sound. Hopefully, little tendrils of common sense will spread from there. Thanks again, and I appreciate the fine attention of grammar verb tense you clearly have strong skills in. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  22:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Main page dates
Re:this - in the future, if this is going to be an issue, please let me know and I can shuffle the dates around to avoid this problem. Raul654 15:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I remember asking you to reschedule Cameroon for similar reasons so decided not to bother you with ODT. I've been surprised to find it pretty well protected without my help. I guess it's more of an issue of being there in case of major edit wars or allegations of POV, etc. Hopefully my internet situation will stabilize soon so that this won't be an issue in the future! — Amcaja ( talk ) 07:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Jay_Blossman_portrait.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jay_Blossman_portrait.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 22:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)