User talk:BeastmasterGeneral/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello,, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- SB Johnny, who is always happy to learn a new name for a hateful weed :) 08:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

wolfmother, not metal?
how do you figure? o.O dposse 05:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wolfmother is not a metal band. They play a hybrid of stoner rock (which is 70s hard rock inspired) and straight rock. They sound more like Foghat than Black Sabbath. They are being lumped into metal by mainstream media because they play hard rock and to a lot of people that equates to metal (AC/DC and Guns and Roses aren't metal but they are often lumped in by VH1). That doesn't mean they aren't good. I like Wolfmother, but I recognize them more as a stoner rock band than a doom metal band. I don't think they are "retro metal" (or hipster metal). First off, the term doesn't exist except to a few people who don't know much about metal. Secondly, they have a lot in common with stoner rock bands (like Fu Manchu) or 70s hard rock (like Foghat, Mountain, Cream, etc) than with 70s metal (Sabbath, Deep Purple, etc). The real argument is weather the term "retro metal" should exist. There are a ton of bands from the 80s and 90s that emulated Sabbath (Sleep, Saint Vitus, The Obsessed, etc). Should all these bands now be lumped into retro metal when they are currently classified as doom metal (a term that means the same thing really)? Olliegrind 00:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, i was the one who created that AFD for Retro metal, so i agree that the term "retro metal" should be gone. I'm just surprised that anyone would consider Wolfmother "not metal". Sure, they aren't as heavy as prehaps Slayer or Judas Priest, but they are definately heavy metal. Doesn't the lead singer remind you of Ozzy? It does to me. (this is just a friendly conversation) dposse 16:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * He doesn't really remind me of Ozzy. The 2nd singer for Count Raven - now that guy sounds like Ozzy (it's sometimes hard to tell the difference). Wolfmother is more upbeat than most metal. I guess they are a borderline case but I feel they have more of a stoner rock or just straight rock feel than heavy metal. Take a band like Fu Manchu. They have similar riffs and distortion but aren't really metal, they're stoner rock. The genre lines are a bit blurry when you get into this area but to me Wolfmother lacks that hard edge that takes a band from being stoner rock/hard rock to heavy metal. Olliegrind 18:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The Sword
We have a persistent vandal on The Swords article, and the album page too. I'm up the 3RR for today, is there anything you can do? The Kinslayer 16:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not, I don't know how to do anything. I've been keeping an eye on his contributions and reverting any vandalism (of which 100% of his edits are).Olliegrind 18:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Progress is occuring. Turns out my suspicions were right and the IP is Husregrav attempting some puppetry. I've made a case Here. If you have the time and inclination, please take a look and add anything you think is relevant, or if I've got some of the details wrong, let me know on my talk page so I can correct them. The Kinslayer 16:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Children of the Grave (White Zombie song)
I understand your point, but switching "song" for "single" will not illustrate that it's not a White Zombie song. Perhaps "(White Zombie cover song)" or simply (White Zombie cover) would be better suited. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Thor band photo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Thor band photo.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:
 * Image use policy
 * 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 Media copyright questions. 19:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Heavy Metal Group categorization
Shouldn't the sub-categories for American heavy metal musical groups be "State heavy-metal musical groups" and not "State heavy metal"? johnpseudo 20:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably, but I just went with what was there (Louisiana heavy metal was already created and I just started with that). I am not really sure how to change them. Olliegrind 20:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You just have to label the articles with a Category:state heavy metal musical groups tag instead of a Category:state heavy metal tag johnpseudo 20:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm looking into getting them renamed now. Olliegrind 20:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I feel like this would be easier for an admin to do johnpseudo 20:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I figured it out. I am posting a speedy renaming tag on the cats. Olliegrind 20:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Categories
Why are you making more hyper specific categories and then they are the only band in it? It is pointless. Avian isn't even a Georgia band. You should at least keep the American category and add the state if you choose to do so for the time being. Maybe eventually when enough bands have states you could do away with it but even then I feel the bands nation is an important category. --E tac 23:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The category is so big that it is practically useless. Breaking it up by state at least makes it so that you can see similar (geographically) bands. Having 1 big cat with thousands of bands is pointless. Olliegrind 23:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't useless, a country and a state is a completely different enntity. It would be unfair for other countries bands to be listed by their nationality then as well. Some bands don't have specific states anyways. Are you up to the task to find out every province and territory and state every single band on wikipedia originates from? This has not been established as policy yet either so if you wish to add the states please do so, but for the time being please don't remove the country categoriztion.--E tac 23:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is completely useless. If you looking at an American band and then you click on the category and see 4000 American metal bands then what good does it do you? If they are from Kansas and you look and can see the 10 other bands from Kansas then that is useful. The states are a subcat of the country so they are still under American heavy metal, but this just makes it easier to sort. Olliegrind 23:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll meet you halfway and not remove the american tag. Olliegrind 23:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Witchfinder2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Witchfinder2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 21:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Rock music Wikiproject invitation
Hello WikiProject Metal member. WikiProject Metal music is important in expanding encyclopedic coverage of the metal. It brings attention to the lesser-known bands, and significantly improves the quality of the famous ones. Five Featured articles and two formers is proof of that. This is the stuff I wish to achieve with the somewhat recently resurrected WikiProject Rock music. I hope to also attract attention to rock music articles of all sorts, and hopefully change some to GA or FA status. I invite you to come join us, and embrace the links between metal and rock music in general. Rock on. -- Reaper  X  04:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Boris
no problem man, hope you find WP:ALBUM good, feel free to join and all of course, i'm not the world's biggest metalhead but as the cliche goes i "know what i like" and i've noticed you do some grand stuff on other metal/etc. articles. peace! W guice 11:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Retro metal
We seem to be recurring adversaries on the subject of "retro metal" music, so I figured we should discuss each of our points of view in order to find middle ground.

First off, I strongly disagree with you that the retro metal following, as it stands, knows little about heavy metal. Retro metal returns heavy metal to what it ought to be; not this hardcore punk-speed metal hybrid commonly called "heavy metal" in the modern press. Look at bands like Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath or even Blue Cheer. These bands set the standard for metal, as it was originally crafted. Now I've got nothing against Slayer or Mastodon (I'm a fan of both), but do they really match up with the style set by Page or Iommi? Think about this: when you compare most modern metal/hardcore bands to Black Sabbath, and then you compare a band like Witchcraft or The Sword, who is it you think lives up to that legacy and method?

Second, I want to inform you that the term "retro metal", which has become a common media term used frequently by the All Music Guide and Rolling Stone, in fact classifies the combination of traditional heavy metal, hard rock and psychedelic rock (in this case, neo-psychedelia would be the proper term). Every "retro" or "hipster"/"heritage" band is putting their own twist on this style, whether it's Doom Metal or Stoner Rock or even Folk-Rock, but it's still in the retro metal vein. These bands can even sound different, which they usually do, but they're still taking after the same influences as their counterparts.

I'd also like to argue that Wolfmother is in fact heavy metal, in opposition to your above comments. Listen to the riffs on their debut and tell me that Stockdale's guitar work isn't clearly in the vein of Sabbath. Sure, Wolfmother is as stoner as Fu Manchu or Kyuss, maybe even more, but since when are psychedelic, hard rock or other such genres stranger to heavy metal?

Retro metal or hipster metal or whatever you want to call it, is a growing, worldwide-excepted style. In reality, what makes this modern retro metal different from the millions of other bands in the 80s or 90s that worshipped Zepp or Deep Purple is in the term used: mid-2000's Retro Metal movement. I'm all for creating an article by that name.

I see why you take an opposing stance; this brand of metal or rock sounds nothing like most of the bands you'd likely see on the Headbangers Ball, nor do they fit the screaming vocals of any modern metalcore/hardcore/thrash metal band (excluding, say, High on Fire, which AMG calls one of the "leading retro metal bands" (sic)). The vocals are melodic; the riffs can go from stoned to sludgy to hard to British Invasion all within the same song. But what's the problem with identifying the retro metal movement when everyone is confirming it exists?

Most of these bands are probably what you could call hard rock over heavy metal, but the point is, again, they're still running in that same retro vein as the next band. You could take Witchcraft and Wolfmother. Now Witchcraft even sounds as though they're a 70s band, from Pelander's Ozzy vocals to the blaring distorted guitars. And Wolfmother could be called hard rock a trillion times over heavy metal, from the QOTSA overtones to the Jack White-meets-Robert Plant vocals. But these bands still fall into the same vein of influences: 60s proto metal (Witchcraft can go from Sabbath to Hendrix in a matter of seconds) and original metal ("White Unicorn" could just have easily fit on Led Zeppelin II, as Woman could have been a Kiss song).

Look at the facts: retro metal is big and getting bigger, and it deserves recognition. Call it what you want, but this is the heaviest, loudest, hardest and wildest form of rock music in years. Editor19841 (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The main problem I have with the retro metal term is that this music has always been made. From the time that Sabbath, Deep Purple, and Led Zeppelin were around to now. Bands like Saint Vitus were around in the late 70s and in the mid-80s Vitus along with Trouble and Candlemass became popular for playing this style of music. During the 90s the doom scene exploded with labels like Hellhound, Rise Above and later Southern Lord pumping out bands that drew heavily from 70s metal (Spirit Caravan, Electric Wizard, Sleep, etc). As we get into the 2000s this same trend has continued. All of the sudden there is now a "mid-2000 retro movement" even though bands like these have always been around. So here's the problem: 25+ years of doom metal and all of the sudden you want to change the name to retro-metal. It's not that I don't like these bands, in fact I like pretty much all the bands you lump into retro-metal. I just don't see why Witchcraft is retro metal and Sleep is doom metal. Or if Sleep now gets put in to Retro than why isn't Saint Vitus? And if they get put into it then why not Sabbath? Where do you draw the line? Finally, I put the note on your page because there is no page for retro metal and the redirect was pointing to a page that no longer has any mention of it. I don't think we should put it on a page if it has been deemed not worthy of it's own article or even mention in the list of heavy metal genres. If retro-metal gets its own article again, then I don't have a problem with it being on pages of the bands (although I would still disagree - I would not remove it).


 * ps. I don't watch headbanger's ball nor do I like most of the stuff they play. I listen to a lot of 70s metal/hard rock and 70s inspired metal/hard rock. You should check out some bands from the mid-90s retro movement (The Obsessed, Spirit Caravan, Internal Void, Iron Man, Cathedral, Electric Wizard, Count Raven). Also check out the mid-80s retro movement (Pentagram, Saint Vitus, Candlemass, Trouble).Olliegrind 23:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

you are awesome.
Hey, thanks for creating the album articles for Pentagram! They look great. I'm actually surprised that they weren't created earlier, but i'm glad they are now. Keep going, you have only a few left. If you need any help, i'll be glad to give you a hand. I'm not too good at creating articles, but i'll do what i can. ^_^ dposse 14:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm a little surprised they weren't already up too. I hope to get the other albums and some of the comps (especially the relapse ones) up this week. The album articles are just starts but I don't know a whole lot about them. Hopefully some others will join in with some info. Olliegrind 20:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sixty8
We believe that we qualify as original Retro-Metal Can anyone weigh in on this? Thanks, Sixty 8
 * I don't know, according to Editor19841 you have to play 70s inspired music, and you guys claim to be inspired by 80s hair metal and 90s grunge so I think you guys do not qualify. Since I do not acknowledge the genre I'm not really the one to ask. Maybe you should try posting on User talk:Editor19841. Olliegrind 10:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Truth is...we incorporate 70's Metal into our writing. For us original Retro-Metal is an amalgam of all Metal.


 * To be honest, I never restricted retro metal to any one decade. I just noted the trend (70's metal). In truth, retro metal is just a catch-all term for hard rock, heavy metal and neo-psychedelia inspired by music/bands popular in past generations. It can envolve mulitple styles, modern and retro, and a number of different influences (i.e. the Doom Metal of The Sword, the Psych Folk of Witchcraft, the Hard Rock of Wolfmother or even the Punk Metal of Cheeseburger). Diamond Nights, a popular retro metal band from New York could easily be considered a 80's inspired retro band, as could Priestess. I've heard Sixty8 actually, being a Colorado native and a heavy metal fan; I think you guys certainy qualify as retro metal, at least in what I consider to be "popular standards". Feel free to come over to my talk page and discuss further philosophies/trends on retro metal music and it's inclusion on Wikipedia. Editor19841 (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Church of misery.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Church of misery.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 18:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous link
Thank you for your recent edit to Diwphalanx Records. Your edit included one or more links to the page Japanese, which is a disambiguation page. This type of page is intended to direct users to more specific topics. Ordinarily we try to avoid creating links to disambiguation pages, since it is preferable to link directly to the specific topic relevant to the context. You can help Wikipedia by revising the links you added to Diwphalanx Records to refer directly to the most relevant topic. (This message was generated by an automatic process; if you believe it to be in error, please accept our apologies and report the error to help us improve this feature.) --Russ (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:44856785 l.jpg
Hello, Olliegrind. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:44856785 l.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Olliegrind/sandbox. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 01:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Absolutego.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Absolutego.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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.BetacommandBot 17:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Boris live dvd.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Boris live dvd.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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.BetacommandBot 02:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Boris abaoaqu.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Boris abaoaqu.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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.BetacommandBot 02:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Boris 1970.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Boris 1970.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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.BetacommandBot 02:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Church of misery logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Church of misery logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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.BetacommandBot 19:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Leafhound.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Leafhound.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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.BetacommandBot 22:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Saint Vitus - Mournful Cries.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Saint Vitus - Mournful Cries.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Heavymetalme.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Heavymetalme.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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.BetacommandBot 23:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Heavymetalme.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Heavymetalme.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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.BetacommandBot 23:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Sleep jerusalem og.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sleep jerusalem og.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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.BetacommandBot 05:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Churchofmisery.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Churchofmisery.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 any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 21:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Iron man passage.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Iron man passage.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 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Witchcraft.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Witchcraft.gif. 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.BetacommandBot 12:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationales and deletion tags
When you add a fair use rationale to an image, you can remove any deletion tag that only addresses the fact that there was no rationale. That reduces the load on admins, and reduces the chance that someone will miss the rationale and delete the image by accident. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)