User talk:Brhannan

Image copyright problem with Image:Katie reider.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Katie reider.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Katie_reider.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Katie_reider.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media 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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thread on ANI...
Your editing as an IP and as a logged in user on the same (and only on that article) as well as your general beahvior hwere on Wikipedia (including a total lack of policy understanding) has led me to believe you have a conflict of interest and are using multiple accounts to appear to be different people. Therefore, I have opened a thread on the administrators noticeboard here. Feel free to comment. MSJapan (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply I am learning the Wikipedia policies as I go along, so I hope that anything I do that falls short of those policies is understood as unintentional. I apologize for any shortcomings. I am learning and will do everything I can to adhere to policies; should I make a mistake in the future, I would appreciate guidance. Nomad 2 (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Katie Reider coverage in Europe
Hi Nomad,

I just wanted to respond to your response on the AFD of Katie Reider, specifically-- "COMMENT The fact remains that a reputable European news source covered Katie Reider's death because of her music and her work as a gay rights activist. The editors of Pink News clearly felt Katie Reider's craft and accomplishments were of sufficent familiarity and interest to its readers to report on her death. As a former reporter with three large national newspaper chains in the United States, I can assure you that news organizations do not write obituaries for people for whom such attention would puzzle its readers."

You are absolutely correct that an obit only comes by way of notability within the publication's readership.

I also wanted to affirm that I gave neither a delete or keep vote for the article. With my comment I just wanted to address the portrayal of Reider's European coverage as I believe that the focused readership of Pink News, one of the best GLBT sources of news, is different than saying that she is being covered extensively in Europe.

As an aside, congratulations on your success as a reporter working for three of the "big five" (whether it be Gannett, McClatchy, or the others). I get the feeling that as purveyors of information and knowledge, that journalists are naturally drawn to Wikipedia.

From a fellow media member, -- GURoadrunner ( Guroadrunner (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC) )

P.S. - have you seen the Pink News Facebook application?

Deletion review
Standing up for yourself. Good for you. I don't think there is any chance whatsoever that the deletion debate will be overturned at review. There were too many solid keep arguments and too many neutral editors in the AfD for any reasonable person to think the the result could be read as "delete." If you want the article to have staying power I'd encourage you to develop it further and to include some of the sources we discussed in the debate. Otherwise, down the road that "no consensus" on the notability might move towards "delete" and I have a feeling that our friend will be back to check on developments down the road.

I can't account for the intensity of MSJapan's position on the article. You do have to respect the kind of clean-up that editors like MSJ do regularly though. There is a lot of crap that gets dumped into Wikipedia. I imagine that he sees the Reider article as no different than some kid who declares himself to be a musician by setting up a MySpace page and writing a little vanity aritcle on Wikipedia--the sort of thing that must not exist in an encyclopedia. I think the volume of press Reider has had show that she was obviously notable. If you still have the wherewithal for it, make the article reflect that. Best, -MrFizyx (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Samuel and Dorothy Eppstein Residence (August 10)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by SportingFlyer were:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Samuel and Dorothy Eppstein Residence and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Samuel and Dorothy Eppstein Residence, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Samuel_and_Dorothy_Eppstein_Residence Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SportingFlyer&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Samuel_and_Dorothy_Eppstein_Residence reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SportingFlyer  talk  04:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)