User talk:CiaranG/Archive1

Confectionery
The entire category:confectionery has been reorganized so that brand name products are in category:brand name confectionery and its subcategories. The top-level category is now only for articles about generic kinds of confectionery. Make sense now? Dr.frog 17:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

New Video Game Article
Hey! I saw that you created a new video game related article- consider joining the Computer and Video Games WikiProject! I have added your article to the list of new articles, and attributed it to you. --PresN 18:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

River Washburn
Hi CiaranG, I'm a little busy at the moment, but I will definitely keep a watch on the page and contribute when I have some spare time.DevAnubis 12:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Dam Builders
Hi CiaranG. Glad I could help with the citation formatting, and thanks for helping to expand British industrial narrow gauge railways. The best reference I've found for Reservoir Construction railways is a series of books called "The Dam Builders in the Age of Steam" published by the Plateway Press. I only have volume 5 of the series ("From Durham's Dales to the Border") all written by Harold Bowtell. They seem to be fairly limited runs, so are hard to find. If you can, get hold of copies of the rest in the series. I suspect these are the most thorough and scholarly references on the subject. Apart from that its finding gems on the web like the Bill Bevan thesis. Good luck, Gwernol 23:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Blue Prism}}}
Hello, CiaranG, and welcome to Wikipedia. An article you recently created,, has been tagged for speedy deletion because its content is clearly written to promote a company, product, or service. This article may have been deleted by the time you see this message. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising service. Thank you. - Tiswas (t/c) 11:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Rudeness does not come into it. It is because I read the article that I tagged it db-spam. There is nothing in the article that suggests, or claims, notability, other than references in passing. - Tiswas (t/c) 11:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There are not, as far as I know, any criteria for what constitutes blatant advertising. As such, I have made a judgement call. By placing the hangon tag, the article will now not be summarily deleted by a passing admin. However, the requirement for displaying notability still stands. - Tiswas (t/c) 11:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Which criterion for notability does the article / company satisfy? Insofar as advertising the company, if there is no notability, all that remains is promotion. - Tiswas (t/c) 12:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed the speedy tag, but not replaced with an AfD yet - I'm sure that, if there is substantial and worthwhile coverage of the company, you will include it in the article. - Tiswas (t/c) 12:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Blue Prism
I've added the "prod" template to the article Blue Prism, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Blue Prism. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Seraphimblade 17:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: Links
Thank you for your recent comments. I feel that the links I have added are relevant, however if you disagree please feel free to remove them. I don't look at this as advertising merely adding a link to another relevent source of information. My site is not yet complete and I would be happy to hear your suggests on content you'd like to see on it.

Kind regards,

Lee —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dotskipton (talk • contribs) 14:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Signpost updated for December 18th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Mark E Smith
Sorry, missed the intention, though it was just a stray See also link. There were only two items missing, and I've transfered them in. Have you heard the new album yet by the way? Reviews have been fairly positive so far. + Ceoil 21:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summary
I'm afriad I don't know what you are talking about, do you mean I have not been adding edit summary's on my pages? If so I apologize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystify85JEC (talk • contribs)

Double Chin
They both at least assert notability, so the right next step is to separate it into two articles: Alan Chin (photographer) and Alan Chin (artist) and then make the Alan Chin article a disambiguation page. Best, Gwernol 23:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Rock on! I'm giving you a Barnstar
Thanks man its a great series although one or two in the episodes are pretty awfully scripted, I have also started articles on many of the actors which also appeared in the Avengers such as Ronald Radd and Jeremy Summers. I will create a list of all the actors and eventually they will all have articles. I thought that navigation box on the right was a good idea Ernst Stavro Blofeld 13:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

User Category
Original message: Hi. Just happened to notice that you're in the Category:Wikipedians by music genre - not sure why, but I assume it isn't intentional - it's probably a mistake somewhere on your user page. Cheers, CiaranG 17:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it was not intentional and I'm not sure how it happened, but it's been corrected. Thanks for the heads-up! --JayJasper 18:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Jyrki Niskanen
Further to your comment at the AFD debate, I have re-written the Jyrki Niskanen article from scratch, and would appreciate your opinions. Thank you. Eludium-q36 18:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The penguin gods are angry
Indeed, grotesque live-birther do not irk us again lest you experiance the fishy vomit of doom. Gloweringly, Euchucka, Keeper of Squawks 22:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. Have a biscuit and a nice cup of tea, my feathered friends. CiaranG 22:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

DasBlog AfD
Thank you for correcting my mistake there. I was looking over the votes, but I missed all the anon votes and such. I'm re-closing as delete.  Nish kid 64  13:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Bit of advice please
This is a portal that definitely has potential. Remember WP:OWN, so you're not stepping on any toes by editing the portal. In fact, you're making it better! For starters, the layout of the page is a bit off. Use P:BEP or Portal:Disasters as a model. We should be showcasing our pictures and articles first, and then have categories, quotes, topics at the bottom. DYK should be expanded if possible, and an archive/suggestions page should be made. Remove the center-justification from the text. It should just be normal text, that is easy to read. For the Intro at top, remove the welcome bit, and just write what a Guitar is (take from Guitar). It seems the news section is a bit outdated, and I'm not totally sure how much guitar news you can really expect. Anyway, the newest items should be at the top, and the oldest at the bottom. Create the redlinks (picture, anniversary), and possibly a new audio section, in which viewers can listen to .ogg media files of guitar solos and such (there's probably a good deal of them in articles). This is all doable, and I'll try to help you out with the portal. Best of luck,  Nish kid 64  19:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Greymatter
I don't mean to criticize, but you edit out all of the links in the article but the primary ones, and then say that the article should be deleted because the only links are the ones you didn't remove? I don't really get it. Sure, it isn't as popular a software as it used to be... I guess if that is why you want to delete it, that would be fine. But the way you deleted all the links and then cited that as a reason for deletion is just kind of sketchy. The article was very out of date and, as I am unfamiliar with the new version, I asked someone on the GM forums to update it, and got no response, so obviously no one cares enough for it to have a Wikipedia article, but I dunno it just kind of irks me the way you did it. I know it "follows" Wikipedia guidelines but the series of events is just kinda shady when looked at as a big picture. Hazelorb 06:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit: Also, Greymatter's article is at least a bit more substantive than most of the other articles in the Blog software category. If you feel like this article is insignificant then you might as well propose to delete most of the articles in that category.


 * Hi. I think you might want to look again - the links I edited out were a combination of inappropriate links link discussion forums, and links to sites directly associated with the software, e.g. the developer's site (which is still rightly there under External Links). I don't think any were the necessary secondary or tertiary sources - by all means correct me if I'm wrong.


 * Also, I haven't said the article should be deleted - quite the opposite, I've just tagged it to flag the fact it isn't properly sourced, in the hope that someone familiar with the product will fix it. Regards, CiaranG 08:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you were correct, I did propose it for deletion after all. CiaranG 14:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

EL removal tools
i might suggest using the last part of the monobook here, the anti-spam tool, in removing links quicker that are all spam. it isn't perfect, so watch out, but it does do simile removals quickly with user-assistance. 128.218.112.157 22:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Clear Papers are made from Generic Cellophane
Please take the time to research this product, as I have. You will immediately see that they are made from Brazilian Cellophane and produced by a company called CELLOFIL / CELLOPHIL in San Paulo Brazil.

Why do you think their name is CELLO? It's because they make CELLOPHANE (search them on the internet). It would be easier if you would just research Cellophane and see that it is the exact product that is being marketed as a clear paper now...

Please do not vandalize the page by deleting text or trying to cover up facts.

--Mrtobacco 00:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nonetheless, I notice that you have changed the wording in your new edit, which is something of an improvement. I will ignore your multiple accusations. CiaranG 09:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

UCFD nomination
Hey, no problem. You didn't "botch" it, the nomination was fine: you just listed it in the wrong place! Keep up the good work! Best wishes, RobertG &#9836; talk 14:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Guitarists
Welcome to the WikiProject Guitarists. Take the time to browse around all of the projects work pages and feel free to comment on anything you think might require attention(or repair) Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 20:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

!Vote
You're welcome. :-) It started off as a knock on political correctness and has become something in common use. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Editor Review
Thank you for dropping a comment on my editor review. But I must tell you. At the moment I have no intentions of going for RFA whatsoever. As for 1; I have only been on wikipedia for 4 days, and for 2; I need to improve a lot more on my AFD comments and my overall contributions. But as I learn the policies and generally get use to wikipedia. I should learn. Retiono Virginian 11:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Subtext Weblog Software Notability
Of course I'm biased, I contribute to the project now and again. I've opened up a discussion page asking what you feel makes it notabile or not. Looking at some of the other weblogs on wikipedia they don't appear to have garnered your "wrath" *grin* despite having smaller entries (e.g. Apache Roller), less traction (e.g. Blosxom) or a not very active version cycle (e.g. Battle Blog). Any pointers on what you feel would make subtext notable, and what sources you will accept would be nice. --Blowdart 15:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Both of the packages you mention there are also on my "wrath"-list, I just haven't got around to them yet. However, the intention is not to get rid of any of these, but to ensure they're properly sourced and meet the policies/guidelines for inclusion.


 * It's not a case of what I feel, or what I'll accept, but rather what the Wikipedia community will accept. As a starting point, have a look at WP:NOTE, and more specifically WP:SOFTWARE. Given your link with the project, you should also be aware of WP:COI, but it's a guideline not a policy, and a bit of common sense goes a long way. It's probably borderline as to whether it even applies here, but it's better to be aware of it. Apologies if you know all this already.


 * I guess turning up and sticking the 'notability' tag on looks quite aggressive and wrath-like, but in fact, I'd rather keep the article if possible, so if you have any questions about the above, give me a shout. Cheers, CiaranG 18:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, I didn't want to edit or add anything myself do to the links. It's hard to argue for something close to your heart :) --Blowdart 22:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think part of the problem with WP:SOFTWARE these days is the "requirement" for physical print, or major reviews. A lot of software, open source software especially is in such a tight vertical market that any review will be done by small groups in that market. Heck, when was the last time you saw a printed view of Apache by someone truly independent? I wonder if someone paying to get it installed on getafreelancer counts as notable :D Also as it's .net based people I would consider notable talk about it, but to the majority of technical wikipedia users (who are, lets face it, linux/php/mysql junkies as a rule) won't know or care who they are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blowdart (talk • contribs) 18:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC).


 * WP:SOFTWARE is only a proposed guideline, and while I generally support it, there are still a number of issues - you may wish to get involved in the discussion there. WP:NOTE is more generally accepted, and specifically does not require physical print sources. Let's forget the details for a moment and go back to the essence of the whole thing: a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.


 * We're ruling out such things as google hits, download sites, sites which review anything and everything, blogs, sites you can update yourself, etc. What's left is evidence that independent and reliable sources have noticed the software and published something substantial about it. That's probably not as difficult as you first thought. CiaranG 20:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

bio
It is the "auto" bit that annoys me: blatant self-promotion, etc. Your bio is not by you and no-one could object to it as being too long. So I say: edit it to correct any errors of fact, otherwise leave it. I have endorsed you by edits to Wikipedians with articles and Talk:Ciaran Gultnieks. I have also taken the liberty of editing your user page (which of cource you have the right to revert instantly). -- RHaworth 10:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Haha - thanks for that. I'll keep your contribution to my user page for now I think, although I wonder if having such a statement on your user page amounts to self-promotion of some kind. I share your views on self-promotion, it makes me feel ill, and that would still be the case if it were my own self. CiaranG 11:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA
I find it particularly amusing that you accuse me of linkspam when the "linkspam" in question was a simple redirect to my user page. ~  Flame vip  e  r  Who's a Peach? 17:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. For the record, I didn't appreciate being diverted to an external site to watch your lengthy animations, before being redirected back to your userpage, just because I was foolish enough to click on your signature. The 89 links to your personal website that you sprayed all over Wikipedia before I asked you to stop are unquestionably linkspam, and the signature was a clear violation of signature guidelines, made, by your own admission, to support your free domain name. I think it's a perfectly valid concern on my part, and the fact that you find it amusing confirms my view. CiaranG 17:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For one, there were no "lengthy animations" on the redirect site. And when I said "amusing", I meant "bitterly ironic". I apoligize for any confusion I may have created. ~  Flame vip  e  r  Who's a Peach? 18:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, I must have missed your sarcasm. Well, currently, clicking on your linkspam spews up some popups (god knows what they are, I'm blocking them) and asks the unfortunate Wikipedian to stare at the screen for 15 seconds while they wait for you to be kind enough to redirect them. You might think that's ok, and you're entitled to your opinion. I don't. Let's not argue about it - we're not going to agree, and we don't have to. Regards, CiaranG 18:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, popups. I didn't realize that there were any popups; it's an entirely different matter now. I'm sorry about that. ~  Flame vip  e  r  Who's a Peach? 20:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Painsweb
You keep deleting my site painsweb.com. This is a good site with hundreds of links and articles to non-profit sites. I am a chronic pain patient myself and with this knowledge added resources that will help others. I have google adsense ads on the page that makes me a dollar a day that goes towards hosting the site and paying for an RSS feed. Please consider adding painsweb.com to chronic pain and pain management category. I covered all types of pain for all diseases. Sam Carson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profitext (talk • contribs)


 * Sorry, please see WP:EL. It wouldn't matter if you were funding the site out of your own pocket, with no ads, nor if you were collecting for charity. Wikipedia is not the place for promotion of sites, nor is it directory of links. Good luck with your site, but please stop adding links here and consider using your knowledge to improve the encyclopedia instead. Regards, CiaranG 17:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: Spammers
Don't worry about butting in. I'm more annoyed at myself because, compared to you at least, I'm being lenient with these guys. At any rate, the whole "why can't I get my spammy link in Wikipedia - the other guy has!" argument does your head in after a while (though normally for me it's "why can't I write a spammy article on my company"). -- Steel 21:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I find that if I just stick a CSD tag on the spammy company article and run, the poor admin that does the delete gets the grief, not me. ;) CiaranG 22:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

--Dallo100 22:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Steel. I gather you are referring to me. In my humble opinion some of you mods on wikipedia use the word ‘SPAMMERS’ too cheaply. I do NOT own a company and my webiste is NON-PROFITABLE and rely totally on sponsors and donations to carry on running our site voluntary. When I was accused of spamming I had inoccently added site information to my link and admit was ignorant of the rules of wikipedia when doing so. Also on the day you banned my IP I was responding to some idiot who was adding abuse to my link, deleting, and moving my link which you mods fail to police and only did so when it was too late. BTW My site link has been on the St Helens wiki page for over 15 months why is now that you have decided that it is NOT suitable for wikipedia? I find it very strange indeed.


 * In fact, over that period, it's been removed many many times, with the same explanation. Here is but one example. You keep putting it back. It's a fair comment that the word 'spammers' might seem to be used too cheaply, but it covers a broad range of activities - some at the more innocent end of the scale, like yours, and others more unpleasant. We tend to use the word to cover it all, and I certainly understood Steel's comment to be referring to the general situation, rather than directed at you. CiaranG 22:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Date preferences
It actually doesn't make sense. Could you provide me with examples how "2001 in music" as opposed to "2001" is a) anything more than a minor inconvenience to the reader, and b) the year messes up the full date (day and month). Thanks. - Dudesleeper · Talk 17:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * See WP:DATE. By formatting the date correctly, the MediaWiki software is able to reformat the date according to the format that the reader has selected in their preferences. Cheers, CiaranG 17:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For the day and month, yes; the year, however, isn't affected:"Examples of links which do not respond to readers' date preferences: Year only: 1974 → 1974." - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The dates in the edit in question ARE the full day, month and year. Those with year only were left alone. CiaranG 18:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * After a good night's sleep, this still doesn't make sense. The day and month were not touched. Either way, it's not that important to concern ourselves with any more than we already have. - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, I can't explain it any more clearly, but it's right there in the link I gave you. Here are examples, matching the old and new formatting in the edit being discussed:
 * Formatting works: January 1 2007
 * Formatting doesn't work: January 1 2007
 * If they look the same to you, go to your preferences and change your date format to '2001-01-15T16:12:34' and look again. You'll see that while the first matches your preferences, the second doesn't. If you look at the source, you will see that the day and month are not touched, it's the year that causes it to go wrong. I do agree though, it's not that important, but you might want to refrain from reverting other's edits like that until you understand it. Regards, CiaranG 12:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I stand by my original point that it displays the date perfectly well to the non-fussy (if these people exist). Losing a link to a year in music because the date doesn't conform to the others in the article, even though it does its job, is rather silly to say the least. - Dudesleeper · Talk 13:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Gwernol
Hi there; you are, of course, wholly correct about Gwernol's ability to take care of himself. But he has been very helpful to me in the past and, as he knows, I occasionally get excited. However, I hear what you say. Best wishes.--Anthony.bradbury 15:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I fully understand, but try and relax and have a nice cup of tea. :) Regards, CiaranG 21:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, appreciate your interest in the Corendal Wiki page, but it's not spam. I am the author of the software, and there was Corendal Wiki page until a zealous bot removed it from Wikipedia because of suspected copyright violation, for the same content that I put in Java Lobby. I am the author of both contents. Thank you for removing your tag —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdanard (talk • contribs)


 * Sorry, I don't know what you mean. I didn't remove any tag. CiaranG 08:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You have been removing an article about a wiki software. I you do that, you should remove any article about wiki softwares. I rewrote the article twice to comply with Wikipedia's rule, but I see you are abusing your editing rules. There has been an article about Corendal Wiki for the longest time, it has been removed by a zealous bot. Again, if you remove this article, be logical and remove all articles about Wiki softwares. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdanard (talk • contribs)


 * Hello again. I don't know what you mean by the longest time. You created the article on Feburary 11, and again on February 12. I didn't remove it on either occasion, please see here. I did though, on both occasions, express concerns about the article, for two reasons:
 * The article doesn't show how the software is notable - unless the subject of the article is notable, it shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please see WP:NOTE and WP:SOFTWARE.
 * You are creating an article about your own software. This is not a good idea - please see WP:COI.
 * If you need any further explanation about any of the above, please feel free to ask here. Regards, CiaranG 08:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

WinLIKE
You commented on the AfD of WinLIKE, and the consensus was to delete. However, an appeal has been made at deletion review to restore the article. The main argument is that sources which assert notability have now been provided. You may wish to comment here: Deletion review/Log/2007 February 12. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know - I am having a look. CiaranG 13:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam
Dear CiaranG,

I believe that the link to MeetAnOstoMate.com should be re-inserted to all of the following articles: Colostomy, Ileostomy and Urostomy. This is a website for ostomates from around the world. It is intended to help ostomates find friends and/or start relationships, as this tends to be a pretty difficult part of their lives. I think the link would be an appropriate addition to the topic of this article and useful for the readers.

Thanks for looking after my talk page
Hi. Thanks for reverting my talk page from "Johnny the Vandal". You might not be aware of this, but any user attacking both my user page and that of User:Hephaestos, or several groups (Crass, The Offspring, Social Distortion) are automatically assumed to be sockpuppets of the notorious vandal "Johnny the Vandal" and are to be permanently blocked from editing on sight. Use the template to leave a note on the talk page. Thanks, again! -- Arwel (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

XXL (magazine)
I noticed that you've edited on the XXL page recently. well, I've just tagged it as unreferenced and as containing original research. If you value the content of the page, please refer to it to provide references to it, otherwise I intend to reduce it to fully verifiable facts, which would bring the article to a stub.

-- linca linca  07:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Go right ahead as far as I'm concerned. I was just removing ringtone spam. Regards, CiaranG 09:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice to know I'm not the only one who belives this.
 * -- linca linca  09:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Remler Catwalk.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Remler Catwalk.png. 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 (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Remler EastToWes.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Remler EastToWes.png. 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 (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Remler Firefly.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Remler Firefly.png. 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 (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Remler Retro1.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Remler Retro1.png. 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 (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Remler Retro2.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Remler Retro2.png. 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 (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Remler TakeTwo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Remler TakeTwo.png. 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 (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Remler ThisIsMe.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Remler ThisIsMe.png. 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 (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Remler Transitions.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Remler Transitions.png. 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 (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:RemlerCoryell Together.png
Thanks for uploading Image:RemlerCoryell Together.png. 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 (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)