User talk:Beefman

Re: Who are you?
>>What's your real name? --CKL

My real name is August Pieres. My original first name (in Spanish) was Augusto (which derives from Augustus): that is what I was called (in Argentina) before I moved to the U.S. Actually, I was called by my nickname, Chapi, which derives from "chap". But in primary school I was mostly called "Pieres", which, surprisingly, turns out to be a Wikipedia article, though on an unfamiliar topic: a more familiar topic (though still somewhat distant) is given by this link. OK, I answered your question, and then some. &mdash;AugPi 21:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Now I remember: in primary school (St. Brendan's), I ended up with the nickname "Papi". I had once accused (behind his back) a fellow classmate of being the teacher's pet: "Cirelli es el papi de la maestra". That comment backfired, and soon everyone in the class was calling me Papi. To ameliorate the situation, I tried to rename myself as "Papyrus", but I don't recall that it worked.

meantone vs. 31-equal
sorry, dear beefman, 1/4 comma meantone is NOT identical with 31 equal, it only comes CLOSE. strictly speaking: it uses the interval 5/4, which 31 equal does NOT! Kmbemb 22:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is correct. The article does NOT state otherwise.  The problem with your edit was that it assumed 1/4-comma meantone has only 12 tones.  The article contradicts that in at least two places. CKL


 * absolutely correct. i just wondered, why beefman erased my distinction between the cent deviation of 7/4 in 31 equal and in 1/4 comma meantone. - as to the two and more augmented sixths: the problem may be this: if we read "1/4 comma meantone", we may first think of this tuning consisting of 12 tones per octave, since very rare readers can imagine keyboards with split keys. Kmbemb 10:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Cents deviation of different meantones is too much detail for an overview article about microtonal music in general. CKL


 * then my suggestion: NO repeated comparison 31 equal - 1/4 comma meantone in this huygens context. we have to eliminate redundancies anyway. Kmbemb 18:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe I've already fixed this paragraph. I just retouched it now. CKL

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AdriaanFokker.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:AdriaanFokker.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AdriaanFokker.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:AdriaanFokker.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.BetacommandBot 08:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AdriaanFokker.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:AdriaanFokker.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 non-free media 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. Chris B •  talk  11:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello and thanks for your message. No worries, Wikipedia's image copyright policy can get confusing. Firstly, Image description pages are tagged with the license and the source of the image. This makes it as easy as possible for readers, Wikipedians, and creators of derivative works to know what they can and can't do with the images in our encyclopedia. So that means you will need to provide the source of the image (i.e. where/what site you got it form.) At the moment, the license tag on the image, namely Non-free promotional, is only used for non-free content. Non-free images need to meet certain requirements, such as having a fair use rationale, in order for their use to be permitted (this is why the image has been repeatedly tagged for deletion). You say that you were given permission to post the image on Wikipedia. Does this mean that the copyright holder explicitly released the image into the public domain? If so, and you feel that its already unbounded by copyright protection, please tell the copyright holder to send permission to the following e-mail address: "permissions-en at wikimedia dot org (permission-en@wikipedia.org)". If the copyright holder does send a message stating for a public release, the image will then be a public domain, if not, the image is still copyrighted and there is a corresponding tag for non-free image. You can choose from this list. Unfortunately, permission for use on Wikipedia alone is insufficient. The copyright owner must be willing to allow commercial, non-educational use and derivative works. I hope that helps. -- Chris B  •  talk  20:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello again. What I have done is I've added a fair use rationale and a more suitable license tag (Non-free historic image, most likely the one you were talking about). It now satisfies the non-free content criteria, so it won't be deleted. Wikipedia does, however, prefer free images to non-free ones (fair use images). Therefore if you do manage to obtain permission, all the better. And if you need any more help, just give me a shout. -- Chris B  •  talk  17:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

LucyTuning/88-ET
Thanks for raising the concerns about LucyTuning...I did not realize that there were concerns about LucyTuning page being original research. If your comments are true, it would be a serious issue and would justify either deleting the page or some of the material on it. I proposed the merge because I believe 88-ET did not meet the Notability criteria. It may be that LucyTuning does not meet those criteria as well, although reading the page suggests that there may be more reliable sources documenting LucyTuning than 88-ET. If we can't find reliable sources, rather than merging LucyTuning into 88-ET, I think we would need to delete both pages. My concern is that I cannot find any good sources for 88-ET. I will begin discussion by posting on LucyTuning's talk page...please join in. Cazort (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. BTW, should I reply here, or on your talk page?  I'm relatively new to the messaging system.


 * I often find Original Research issues to be hard to unravel. The LucyTuning entry is being heavily edited by Charles Lucy, usually from an anonymous account (we've had private correspondence about this).  I'm a member of WikiProject Tunings, and Charles is well known in tuning theory circles as a vigorous self-promoter.  That said, LucyTuning may be notable, in that several musicians have recorded music using it.  88-ET is, theoretically speaking, a much more general concept, but it may not be as notable as LucyTuning (it seems silly to have an entry for every equal temperament through, say, 200, but if we tried to discuss all important ETs on the equal temperaments page, it would no doubt be attacked for being too long... sigh).  In this case I would suggest deleting the redirect only.


 * Lucy's concept of ScaleCoding, on the other hand, is clearly original research (and also not notable). We're currently looking at a possible edit war over whether it should be mentioned on the LucyTuning page. -CKL

PCP section
If I was a "true wikipedian" and removed all the unsourced material, I would, in fact, be quite counter-wikipedian. I add fact tags to warn people of dubious or unsourced statements that should not necessarily be taken as fact. I make no assertion as to the factuality of embalming chemicals' confusion with PCP, one way or the other. I desire one particular answer, though: why did you call the tags "vandalism"?

I apologise if you took the tags as a personal affront: they were meant as nothing of the sort. However, I must say that I find your (sarcastic?) remarks to be somewhat standoffish. I'm not suggesting a removal of any information with a fact tag, I'm simply advertising for confirmation, in an effort to better wikipedia. If I were to propose a removal of all unsourced information, many of the articles I contribute to would be gone, particularly those in WikiProject Warhammer 40,000. I don't understand what was witty about my tags, and I'll have you know that I don't actually have any barnstars yet, nor do I know what "shaq-fu" is.

If you have some references, or some leads, please let me know, and I'll add them if I can, but I'd rather encourage you to be bold and do it yourself. Not that anyone would object.Tealwisp (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If I was a "true wikipedian" and removed all the unsourced material, I would, in fact, be quite counter-wikipedian. I add fact tags to warn people of dubious or unsourced statements that should not necessarily be taken as fact. I make no assertion as to the factuality of embalming chemicals' confusion with PCP, one way or the other. I desire one particular answer, though: why did you call the tags "vandalism"?


 * Because I see them as a form of vandalism. Flitting by and adding a few meaningless characters to a page.  Editors show good intention by adding relevant information to an article, demonstrating expertise in its subject matter, demonstrating that they've taken any time at all to research the subject, study the article's revision history, or read its talk page.


 * Requiring material to be sourced externalizes any debate about the truth but doesn't make Wikipedia any more factual. It's a cheap way out of the truth problem and the tacit solution enacted by the Wikipedia ecosystem was to present original research and unsourced material anyway.  Tons of it.  Almost all of it.  And despite pretending to be impartial, it turned out to be the best truth system ever.  And now all editors have a responsibility to that information.  Inconsistently applying irrelevant rules in a fraction of cases does nothing to make good on it.

I apologise if you took the tags as a personal affront: they were meant as nothing of the sort. However, I must say that I find your (sarcastic?) remarks to be somewhat standoffish. I'm not suggesting a removal of any information with a fact tag, I'm simply advertising for confirmation, in an effort to better wikipedia.


 * I didn't take them as a personal affront. There should perhaps be a better mechanism to track down the author of a particular piece of content.  But the best action must have been to look for a source yourself and/or make a note on the article's talk page.  In this case, the best source I'm aware of happens to *be* the article's talk page.

If I were to propose a removal of all unsourced information, many of the articles I contribute to would be gone, particularly those in WikiProject Warhammer 40,000.


 * Wait, your main shtick is Warhammer / anime / fictional universe content? Get out of town!  That's so unlikely.  Though it probably is all just as true and unique as the math and hard sciences content I had in mind when I made that comment.

If you have some references, or some leads, please let me know, and I'll add them if I can, but I'd rather encourage you to be bold and do it yourself.


 * Now there's a concept! I already explained I think this is original information, though that may have changed since 2006. beefman (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If it is original research, it probably should be removed. Tealwisp (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Lucy tuning
An article that you have been involved in editing, Lucy tuning, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 22:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Gwalla. I would like it to be known that the user LucyTune is apparently retaliating for the page deletion by removing references to my domain from wikipedia.  There is no commercial activity of any kind (including ads) anywhere on my domain -- I host scholarly materials on behalf of several authors.  I believe LucyTune is Charles Lucy, who has on another forum expressed his belief that I nominated the page for deletion (I did not).  Thanks, by the way, for reverting many of these edits.  In fact the one case you did not revert, the Haken Continuum entry, where the external link LucyTune deleted was also a citation... I strongly doubt LucyTune was aware of the redundancy. beefman (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

uman
np, see you need help on the progrom article too. Galassi is giving us both a hard time lately it seems...--Львівське (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

abiogenic petroleum
Please explain at Talk:Abiogenic_petroleum_origin. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please provide better sources instead of reverting the edit again. I already explained on the talk page why those sources are not enough to remove that claim. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Abiogenic petroleum origin. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

For the last time, stop reverting that edit unless you can provide sources that actually support the removal. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Look, I think it's great that young people have taken such an interest in fighting things like homeopathy. But please, stick to easy targets like that and stay away from subjects that actually are technical.  And please, keep the lolcats on 4chan. beefman (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but, you need to provide sources, you can't use your personal expertise here to justify edits in wikipedia. Three editors (including myself) have already explained why they think that those sources are not good enough. Next time you revert without giving a better source, I will simply report you to the edit warring noticeboard, and you might be blocked.


 * A good faith suggestion: try Wikiversity. You can write educative material and have more control over them than wikipedia articles. You can ask other people not to edit your material, you have academic freedom to make original research, you can enter into as much detail as you want, you can explain how the field has been mistreated, etc. You could start a page at wikiversity:Abiogenic petroleum and explain the theory in a level of detail that wouldn't be allowed here. It's a bit difficult to explain, it's better explained at this rough guide wikiversity:Help:Creating_educational_content_at_Wikiversity/2. What do you think? --Enric Naval (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? I provided sources before you even wrote on this page. Meanwihle you will find your threats will not alter my behavior. beefman (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe...
.. it was written in 2006, long before the current infatuation with style over substance, when a lack of in-linking was not assumed to be evidence of an evildoer. Ahh, the good old days, when we came to write articles, not waste oh so much time playing games.

So, to you sir. One might find they can trivially ref any one of these statements with a bit of Google-fu. For instance, much noise will return if they Google up "S-N", but narrowing the search ever so slightly with a bit of context, and *poof*! The second part will not be so easy, but by no means impossible (hint: the math was from a well known Torontonian). Maury Markowitz (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I hope I gave ample clues to the extreme sarcasm being used (except for the part about thanking you for the content). I was more looking for a shoulder to cry on (I started editing in 2003 and used to inhabit the c2 wiki).  You can read some of my thoughts on the, uh, culture changes here and I would like to read yours if you have any. beefman (talk)


 * Indeed, this is why I responded in kind. I do hope the post above comes across jokey and not serious!
 * But I have to say, my writing has improved due to the ref police. Consider the National Ignition Facility article - I got tired of the wikilawers complaining so I went ref crazy. I was sent materials from the lab to help out in this quest. I'm reasonably happy with the results.
 * I guess the "problem" is that the bureaucracy is difficult to move. So it moves only when something embarrassing happens and then never re-considers the changes -- "we already talked about that". The ref mania started when the press started writing articles about whether or not you can trust the wiki. This is worrying, because it seems the only forward thinking part of the system is on the tech side, and the policy side is entirely reactive. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a great article, thank you! If every admin worked like you I would have no problem with the policies as such.
 * Here are some suggestions I am too lazy to do anything about myself (I know, I suck):
 * In the ICF background, a sentence explaining that NIF is essentially a Teller-Ulam bomb where the fission primary has been replaced with a laser.
 * You need a photo of those insane KDF crystals.
 * Some reference to the fact that its maximum firing rate is on the order of several hours. And a reference to the recent work on high-power DPSS that could change this.
 * Some discussion of its role as a power station prototype, perhaps in Criticisms. It's often sold to the public this way, despite extreme dubiosity.  Also, some mention of the LIFE project, which is slightly more plausible in this dept. (but not much). beefman (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Quit being a dick
You do not have my permission to delete, fix, change, move, or otherwise vandalize my comments at Abiogenic petroleum origin. Read WP:TPO, and if you can convince me that ANY of the reasons to delete comments apply, convince me. You do not own the article. You are not the world's leading expert on it; furthermore, we all have edits to make. Your insulting comments to editors is getting out of hand. Your ownership of the article is getting out of hand. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 16:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Pardon? I've hardly touched the article. I have not deleted or vandalized comments, and I do have permission to move them. I would however suggest ignoring trolls from 189.32.132.90. beefman (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Seriously? You have permission to move comments?  Can you provide that diff for me to study?  Thanks very much.  I think you can reply here while you're blocked for disrupting the talk page with deletions for which you had no permission.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, seriously. Here's the diff. beefman (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

ANI notification
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 18:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

ANI Notice
I've started an ANI regarding a discussion you're involved in. NickCT (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know, but I'm afraid I can't understand those proceedings. I can tell you what happened: An anonymous user added a comment to the end of a long-standing (well, not long-standing, but stable) thread on the Abiogenic Petroleum talk page. The comment was unrelated to that thread. Orangemarlin, who apparently sees himself as the underdog defender of truth on this topic, replied. I initially deleted these comments, which in my view were flames and at minimum violated the 'talk page is not a discussion forum' concept. After Orangemarlin complained, I reinstated the comments in a new section of the talk page. Orangemarlin apparently has me confused with his perceived foes on this topic, and went nuts. Upon checking wikipedia today, I found this administrivia stuff, and the original two offtopic comments (since grown into a flame war) back in the inappropriate section of the talk page. I've moved them once again and hopefully that will be the end of it. beefman (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
You have been blocked from editing for a period of  12 3 hours for edit warring, as you did at Talk:Abiogenic petroleum origin. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC) During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Wow, you just don't give up
You were blocked once for your edit warring at Abiogenic petroleum origin. But I guess owning the article is your goal. Good luck with that. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 01:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, I was not edit waring on Abiogenic petroleum origin nor have I contributed even a single character to that page. The page in question was its Talk page, and the "edit war" consisted of 2 or 3 edits: me initially deleting your conversational material from the page, and then, after you complained, moving it to its own section. Today I found a bunch of administrivia had been generated on your behalf, and the two comments in question become a veritable flame war, which I have again moved to their own section. I think it's great you're interested in science, but I think your behavior only enables the intelligent designers you fear. In any case, I hope you'll leave me out of it. beefman (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Garrett Lisi
I would like to mention that I'm trying to get a reasonable and NPOV version of Antony Garrett Lisi's page, that currently has been under censorship from User SherryNugil that does not want to include the current status of the Lisi's theory and that wants to keep all the articles and interviews and tv appearances and blog entries and forum discussions about Lisi. Not even for Nobel Prize Laureates there is such a complete list. I am also reporting that user for several reasons and it would be good if you could participate to the discussion giving your opinion, given that in the past you contributed to that page. Look at the discussion page for the last happenings. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 16:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your efforts. It seems the petty tyrant wikipedia deletionists are at it again. As you probably saw, I already engaged them on the Exceptionally Simple Theory talk page. Unfortunately there's not much I can do, since editing such articles requires expertise in high-energy physics. The deletionists of course have no such self-restraint, so they always win. They also have no lives outside of wikipedia, so they can also win by brute force of time spent here. Most folks like me have long ago given up. I just hang around for the dark humor. beefman (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Mars RFAR
You're welcome.

I thought that it had gone on too long. As I said, the conduct issues are making resolution of the content issues impossible.

An outside opinion would be useful. In particular, an outside opinion advising the ArbCom to accept the case would be helpful.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Where should I add it? I'm not listed as an involved party on the RFAR so I'm hesitant to edit there. The best summary I've written so far is probably this diff. beefman (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:AdriaanFokker.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:AdriaanFokker.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. – Editør (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You have reverted the replacement of this image in the article Adriaan Fokker without giving a reason in your edit summary. Please discuss the issue on the talk page Talk:Adriaan Fokker. Thanks! – Editør (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:ErvWilson.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:ErvWilson.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 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 Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See 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. Kelly hi! 11:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:ErvWilson.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:ErvWilson.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 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 Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See 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.

ATTENTION : This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

File:ErvWilson.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ErvWilson.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the 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. ATTENTION : This is an automated, bot-generated message. 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) 23:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)