User talk:Consequentially

NOTICE: 

IF YOU START A NEW TOPIC ON THIS TALK PAGE, I WILL RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTION OR COMMENT HERE. PLEASE ADD THIS PAGE TO YOUR WATCHLIST IF YOU WISH TO SEE MY RESPONSES. THIS HELPS FUTURE READERS KEEP THINGS IN CONTEXT, AND INCREASE THE LONGEVITY OF MY CLICKING FINGER.

Welcome
Hello, Consequentially, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Thanks for dropping a note at New user log. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style (formatting questions)

If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, add a question to the Village pump, ask me on my talk page, or place   on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

A note on process: Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! &mdash;ERcheck @ 13:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
Aaron, before you set about writing an article on something that you really thought already should have had an article, you should check to make sure you were spelling it correctly.

You created dimethly sulfoxide; however, dimethyl sulfoxide already exists and goes into quite some detail. I've incorporated the content from yours into the main article and converted yours into a redirect as a not-implausible spelling.

No harm done; this is just so you don't waste the effort next time. DS 02:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ralf Hotchkiss
Hello. Unfortunately there is no grounds for immediate removal of advertising and nn websites and businesses, so we'll have to put up with it for 5 days until the prod expires, or if someone (the author) contests it, bring it to Afd and knock it off (5days also). Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC).
 * Well, in January when I first tried AfDs, I did the opposite and tried to slow-delete everything and got a bit of attention for listing obscene attack pages at AfD. Anyway, the Ralf Hotchkiss page has been disputed, so I have had to submit it to AfD. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Queen
Thanks for the response on the Queen page. I too am fairly new to editing Wikipedia - less than a month. I know it's difficult to know how bold to be - and we're both still learning! Your edits to "Queen" at least made me go back and tidy up all the various "Queen" & "Queens" disambig. pages and hopefully add a bit more consistency and cross-referencing. I think the joint result of what we've both done is better than what was there before. Truth be known, I only learnt some of the things I mention because I went off and looked them up after seeing your edits, to check whether my gut instinct was right! So thanks for making me do that! TrevorD 11:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Can Someone With Experience Help Me Out Here?
While perusing the WP:MEA I came across a request for Ozark-St. Francis National Forest. Wikipedia has articles on Ozark National Forest and St. Francis National Forest, which, according to the US Parks website are the two component forests of Ozark-St. Francis. To be technically correct, I feel Wikipedia should have the article on Ozark-St. Francis as a whole, not its two components. Furthermore, both Ozark National Forest and St. Francis National Forest are small enough to be comfortably combined into one article.

That said, I have absolutely no idea how to go about merging the two into one article. I get the technical side of it from the merging tutorials, but is there any official policy for dealing with this kind of thing? Any help would be appreciated.


 * The I would go about it is:
 * Make sure it's a good idea (maybe ask on a talk page, or just be confident that the change would be unopposed)
 * Move the more substantial article to the new location. In this case, move Ozark National Forest to Ozark-St. Francis National Forest. We move, using the "move" button, so that the history remains with the article to maintain GFDL licensing req's.
 * Copy and paste the info from St. Francis National Forest into Ozark-St. Francis National Forest, and redirect St. Francis National Forest to Ozark-St. Francis National Forest.
 * --Commander Keane 00:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Consequentially! My advice is to be BOLD. Your reasoning is sound, so i would just go ahead and merge both articles into one new one as described. You may also leave a note on the articles talk pages, explaining your reasoning, especially if there are other editors who have recently edited the articles. Should you need any specific assistance in doing this, let me know! Rockpocket (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. Its a very nice article, by the way - good work. I know what you mean re: WP:BOLD - it took me a while to pluck up the courage to take the plunge without reassurance also. With the sensible reasoning you show above, however, you should have no problems going with your gut in future. Rockpocket (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ozark-St. Francis National Forest
Hi! You should check out WikiProject Protected areas. It's a whole big project on people who have done this before. When you're editing articles, look for a well written example of what you're trying to write such as the Featured articles at the bottom of the page. For your example, I'd recommend looking at the Shoshone National Forest article.

One of the things you'll notice is that there are infoboxes in the upper right corner of each page. This provides a quick reference for the page (as well as letting other Protected Areas project members know that the page has been worked on by another project member). If you don't know particular numbers, just leave them blank and the system will omit them.

Image:US grid.png is helpful in placing the location dot. If the forest is too big for the dot, put the dot on the headquarters.

I'll be glad to answer any other questions you may have. I've worked with MONGO on several of the National Wildlife Refuges; he's an even better source then I am! ClarkBHM 04:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Iowa
Hello, I noticed that you edited an article related to, or expressed interest in Iowa. Therefore, I was wondering if you would be interested in joining (proposed) WikiProject Iowa? If so, please add your name to "Interested Wikipedians" at Proposed WikiProject Iowa --Tim4christ17 03:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Joshgiving Day
Mind if I change that speedy to a prod since it's in userspace now? I moved it to userspace rather then speedy it in an attempt to avoid biting the newbie. I was going to prod it anyway so that it'd be removed in 5 or so days, giving the creator a chance to save it elsewhere if he wanted. Anyway, do you mind? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 04:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to the Deus Ex page
Hey, I just wanted to say thanks for all the work you have done on the Deus Ex page, especially in the Plot and Gameplay segments. It has vastly improved since you started adding to it. Keep up the good work. -- Grandpafootsoldier 01:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Deus Ex is one of my favorites as well, I would have started on the plot, but I've been kind of busy (and to tell you the truth, I had kind of forgotten some of the plot details) ;)


 * I shouldn't worry too much about the length of the plot summary as Deus Ex is an unusually long game (by today's standards at least) with a very complicated plot. To compare, for instance the Half-Life 2 section is also quite long and that game's set up is quite simple in comparison.


 * Also, if you have any more suggestions about anything that should be done (aside from completion of the summary) before this article can be re-nominated for GA standing let me know. Thanks again. -- Grandpafootsoldier 01:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I totally know what your talking about with Firefox tabs, I use them pretty much whenever I edit on Wikipedia.


 * As far as images go, though I do have a copy of Deus Ex, and could do the whole sight-seeing play through to get images, it would take quite a while, and I don't really know if I have the time right now. Another solution might be to post a request for pics on some of the Deus Ex fan forums (like PlanetDeusEx or TTLG.com), though you would have to pretty specific on what you want, otherwise you'll get a bunch of crap images.


 * I'm in the same boat as you as far as the Multi-play and Mods sections are concerned. Though I played the PC version I didn't really dabble in either of them. Again forum requests for help might work for that (though admittedly its not very likely).


 * I agree with you about the versions section, but might be as simple as renaming it to something that encompases the topic better, or just puting some of the aspects in their own section by itself. There does seem to me to be a few too many sub-sections anyway.


 * Though that might well work, I'm not quite sure about moving those elements you mentioned into the "Settings" section as it already flows quite well into the plot summary, and the addition of those aspects would be kind of an abrubt explanation of slightly out of context elements. They are quite important sections, however, and I don't think putting them in their own section would be completely out of the question, perhaps called "Narration" or "Composition" or something like that.


 * Also it might be a good idea to move the "Open-ended Gameplay" section into the beginning "Gameplay" intro. Thanks for your insight. -- Grandpafootsoldier 03:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've done a bit of reorganization. Feel free to change my changes, but let me know what you think. -- Grandpafootsoldier 06:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Alterations to Gameplay section
I do agree the guy does get kind of wordy with his additions (I haven't seen all of what he has added to the plot summary section because Wikipedia isn't working to well for me right now). However, there are are a couple small things he has added which I think are worth mentioning, specifically how the game rationalizes the nano-tech "power-up" elements with reality (though that probably should be moved to the "Role-Playing elements" section), and how both a stealthy and "tank" manner of gameplay are possible with the different skill sets. I think the best course is to shorten/reword what he has written as much as possible while still keeping any significant additions. That's just my two cents. -- Grandpafootsoldier 00:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Versalife
Why did you get rid of Versalife from the Deus Ex Template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Exiledone (talk • contribs).
 * VersaLife has been merged to Deus Ex, and is now a redirect to the Deus Ex page. Leaving it on the template would only lead to confusion, as anyone clicking it would end up back at Deus Ex and not necessarily know why. Consequentially 01:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but why the hell did you merge the article into the main page.? Exiledone 13:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Any discussion of VersaLife is directly related to DeusEx -- the only reason that word exists in the computer gaming world is because it was in this game. The article was nothing more than plot summary, explaining how the company interacted with the story, and since that information is now presented in-context within the main article, a sub-page about the corporation was unneccesary and redundant. Consequentially 02:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

My views on the issues with A Man In Black
Since you are a relative newcomer to the ongoing drama on the Deus Ex page, and from your replies on the talk page you seem to be a very level-headed, fair, and articulate person, I thought you might be someone good to talk with about this issue. Your statement on the talk page about "two ships passing each other at night" is more right then you may know, as it has seemingly been AMIB vs. every other editor on the Deus Ex related page for at least the past six months, with issue after issue growing into full-blown yelling matches.

Now, taking my experiences with him out of this, and looking at his edits from a completely outside perspective, I would completely agree with you. All (or nearly all) of what he has done has probably been completely within the rules, and can be seen as attempts to make Wikipedia more encyclopedic, etc.

However, it is the manner which he goes about doing this which has been so erksome to me, and many others (as someone said on the talkpage the "how" versus the "why"). As far as I can tell, he has not once actually added anything to the main Deus Ex page, or any of its sub-pages. Not one bit of text, picture, citation, nothing. All he has done is either add an ever increasing number of criticism tags (some of which I believe he has created himself for whatever purpose he needs), or just deleted whole swaths of writing, or even entire articles which don't exactly conform with Wikipedia's (or maybe just his) standards in every minute detail at that particular time. This is especially annoying as he also seems to hold a double standard with this behavior, as he never provides this treatment to other game page sections with a simillar article situation (such as Final Fantasy, or Half-Life 2) and has even cited some of them as examples to be followed. As silly as it sounds, it is almost as if AMIB has a personal vendetta against this particular game, and is using all the rules of Wikipedia he can muster to make adding to it as hard as possible.

It is this abrasive, delete and merge as much as possible, manner of business which is the main source of the never-ending conflict on these pages, in my opinion. Sorry, to take so long with this, but this has been bugging me for months and your opinion would be greatly valued. Thanks. -- Grandpafootsoldier 09:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

by-nc-sa
You do realize that this license is fundamentally incompatible with wikipedia, right?--Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * How so? I know I don't have the best understanding of copyleft licensing, but I didn't see anything that would make the two conflict. Consequentially 17:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Noncommercial sharealike means it's only usable noncommercially. The whole point of wikipedia is that our content can be used by anyone, nonprofit or commercial. People like answers.com, who mirror our content and put ads on the side, are encouraged, because they get it out to more people. Same for something like selling a CD of great articles or a poster of a great image. You agree to license under the GFDL by clicking save page anyway. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah. I didn't interpret the non-commericial provision in that way, because Answers.com and other mirrors don't charge their users a fee to access the information. It appears to be a non-issue, though. If all Wikipedia content is licensed under GFDL by default, the inclusion of public domain and Creative Commons userboxes seems asinine.Consequentially 19:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Images aren't, just textual content, which is why we have image copyright tags. The dual-license userboxes are so your content can be reused on projects like wikitravel and wikinews, that use a different license. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for clarifying that for me. I suppose I'll pull down the userbox, and find something else to stuff up there. Consequentially 20:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Good...another one is strong in the Dark Side
If anything I say is quoteworthy, feel free to use. In fact, feel free to copy anything you like from my pages. I'm still developing my screeds on Deletionism -- I start by getting all my vitriol out and then slowly calming them down until I'm left with something (semi) professsional. I'm glad people seem to like my firebrand-style attitude. Happy editing, and man, I'm behind on wikifying. -- Elaragirl | | | | | | Talk 04:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Of all the tasks I've dabbled with, Project Wikify has to be the most depressing. NewPage patrol brings a similar amount of crap, but most of it is blantantly worthless. The pages that end up in the queue for wikification are subtly worthless. I can't blame anyone who gets fed up with that work. Thanks for letting me use your quotes. I'll be sure to share any insightful deletionist rants with you. I'm weighing two different slogans so far; "If it might be notable tomorrow, I'm deleting it today," and "Keep and Expand: Slightly less ignorant than 'I'll just pull out'." Consequentially 19:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, wikification shows you stuff that is great, just not formatted correctly, too, though. I must admit NPP exposes you to some of the most mind-damaging shit in the Wikipedia....but hey. Thems the breaks. -- Elaragirl  | | | | | | Talk 19:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's true. I've decided WP:WIKIFY is my favorite way to learn new things on the encyclopedia. But I don't think I've ever found an article who's only problem was formatting. Unsourced, innacurate information is pretty pervasive on even the most promising of wikify-taged articles, and that's just as damaging to our efforts as Poke-stubs, schoolcruft, and so on. Still, we're both right on one thing: it's orders of magnitude better than NPP. Consequentially 20:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thought you'd like to know
My closing of Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series is up for review at DRV. —Doug Bell talk 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Eww. I was afraid that this would happen, but things appear to be going well enough so far. That was anything but an easy close, and I think you did an excellent job considering the wide variety of arguments, sources, and opinions. Consequentially 02:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Canon fancruft vs non-canon fancruft?
I was re-reading that Star Trek JAG AfD when I came across this post of yours:


 * Pft. A quick Google search for "'Starfleet Judge Advocate General' -wikipedia" gives 63 hits. The first page gives us
 * canon fancruft,
 * non-canon fancruft
 * Consequentially 00:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Consequentially 00:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Consequentially 00:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm just curious what terminology you're using to define those two links. "Canon" is material that is officially presented within the work of fiction, so I don't see how you could have such a thing as "canon fancruft". If someone's making up junk, it's nowhere near canon.

The "artificial brain" page is interesting - due to my uni research, I'm especially intrigued by the critical thinking presented in the "Moral and Ethical Considerations" section. My personal interests aside, if something like that appeared in a reputable publication, fully referenced, it'd make an excellent reference for a Wikipedia article. In Wikipedia terms, of course, it's OR, and can't be posted here directly. But it's quality is too high to be called fancruft.

The "ranks" page, OTOH, is trash. I could have pulled better ranks out of my... what the hell are Gravity Scouts and Adjutant Brigadiers? And half the ranks insignia that are copied from the show are mislabelled - e.g. it's named all the ST:VOY Maquis ranks as "Rangers & Marines". It makes up its own stuff, directly contradicts canon, and should never even be used as a reference. It is, in the end, a truly excellent example of fancruft. Gravity Scout Quack, signing off. :-p Quack 688 09:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You know . . I'm not quite sure what I was thinking there. Looking at it now, I'm certain I wouldn't label that as canon on purpose. Either I copied the wrong link to the wrong section, or I should drink less when arguing about Star Trek. If you're looking for deeper meaning, I'm afraid I can't help you much. That one's pretty much just a goof. Consequentially 04:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "I should drink less when arguing about Star Trek"
 * So... do you grab the bottle before or after Star Trek articles appear on your screen? LOL, just kidding! I guess the point I just wanted to make is that there's a wide range of independent material out there - some could conceivably be used as a critical reference if properly sourced and published, while some is pure and utter fancruft. Cheers for your frankness - put a beer on my tab. Quack 688 16:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh before, for sure. Some people take a Wikibreak when the stress builds, some people take a shot. It doesn't really matter which article I'm working on or arguing about, when the going gets tought, the tough get a highball. I understand your point, and even agree with it in certain circumstances. Consequentially 19:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh man, if I started downing shots every time I got frustrated here, I'd probably wake up with a five-star hangover and a lifetime ban. Don't tempt me :-p Quack 688 23:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: Getting Deus Ex to FA
Sure, I'm willing to help. From what little I've read, it's going to take awhile to get this article through FA (mainly due to length and citation issues), but I'll post my full thoughts on the article's talk page. Hopefully, I'll have time today to give the article itself some elbow grease. JimmyBlackwing 13:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC) I appreciate the help! I imagine I already know what you're talking about when you mention length and citation issues, but I'm still interested to see what you end up with. Consequentially 13:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Grieg's music in popular culture
Please reconsider your comments at Articles for deletion/Grieg's music in popular culture about deleting this article, Grieg's music in popular culture, per the Heymann standard. I made a lot of fixes to the article. Thanks in advance. Bearian 20:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I hope to add more soon. Bearian 20:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Bugaboo scrub fire
Thanks for the picture! Adds a lot to the article. Um, could you check your caption? It appears to not completely make sense. Again, thanks. An article like that needed a picture. Unschool 15:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)\
 * Oops! Should've previewed that. I changed the caption halfway through, and missed a word that was supposed to be taken out. I've updated it now, and it should work better. If you want more pictures, let me know. Happy to help! Consequentially 19:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Weaponhouse
Hi, on August 5 you tagged the above article with db-nonsense tag. A short while later, while clearing out the CSD backlog, I came across the article and removed the tag because the text was clearly not "an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content." A few minutes later you re-tagged it with the edit summary "do not remove speedy tags on articles you have created yourself". However, if you had checked the edit history, you would have noticed that I am not Arve Holmeide the creator of the article. Please remember that CSD G1 is not to be used for information that you believe to be false, but only for articles that are pure gibberish. As it is, a couple of quick google searches indicate that the article's content was essentially correct. I have asked the deleting admin, NCurse to reconsider his deletion. Dsmdgold 03:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The nonsense tag was a mistake in Twinkle. I clicked on the wrong button, probably, and gave it the wrong tag. I did search for "weaponhouse" though, and felt that the ten results were insufficient proof. The re-tag was a mistake, and for that I apologize. I'd been deep in NPP for a long while at that time. Still, removing the tag altogether instead of contesting it might have led to a different outcome. I still believe that there's limited proof of the kind of widespread use of this term that would merit inclusion, but I'll let it hang out for a while and see what happens. Thanks for brining this to my attention. Consequentially 18:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, I did remove the tag altogether. diff. If you have to check google for anything other than copyright violations to determine how to mark an article, then perhaps you ought not tag as a speedy.  Since this was not one of things covered by A7 even if the information was completely false it still would not be a speedy candidate becouse it did had "insuffcient proof." I'm also uncertain as to why something as specialized as this would need to have "widespread use" to "merit inclusion." Dsmdgold 00:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I had that backwards. I meant the hang-on would've been better than removing it altogether. I've been hit pretty hard by Arabic recently, and I my brain's skipping a few beats here and there. I check Google on speedy candidates to see what the article might be talking about. It's easier to separate would-be hoaxes from specialize minutiae and the like. It was my belief that a concept like a weaponhouse would attract more attention if they were in widespread use. In hindsight, I should've prodded it instead of speedy-ing it, and I'm glad that you reviewed the logs to find it.Consequentially 04:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I can understand something like Arabic making your brain falter, Latin did that to me a couple of times and it uses the same alphabet. I should point out that hoax isn't a speedy deletion criteria. Dsmdgold 01:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

speedy deletion of Dieter Anhuf
I d' ont agree with the speedy deletion. More details about Dieter Anhuf are to be found in the french and german wikipedia. Dieter Anhuf is one of the rare german experts of francophone Africa (Tunisia, Senegal and Côte d' Ivoire. If the page is realy deleted (speedly or not) one could think that expertise about francophone Africa is not important for widipedia. I will continue to translate the article from french to english in the next days. Pinus pinea 09:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The lack of English-language articles in scholar searches had me worried so far as notability is concerned, but I'm happy to wait until you put more information up. If you have any French language sources, feel free to share them. I'm engaged to a francophone, and she'll set me straight. Consequentially 13:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hallo - i have tried to improve the article -now i think its a real article. I haven't something to share in french (or other languages) - in the article you find the link of the Homepage of Dieter Anhuf (http://www.phil.uni-passau.de/geo/SAnhuf.html), where you will find the complete list of Anhufs publication. Concerning english, - there are still countrys where english is quite not important. As you study arab - I sometimes work in a country (I am scientist) where perhabs 10-20% of the scientist speak english, - the rest is only speaking french and arab. Pinus pinea 16:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean. Most of the science textbooks in our Arabic department are in French, actually, which is weird. I didn't mean to imply that only English sources matter, though. I couldn't find many foreign language sources, either. Consequentially 17:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

theyworkforyou
Hi Consequentially. Have you any objection to removing the notability warning on this entry? The site is one of the best used UK political websites, frequently referenced by Wikipedia, and the warning served its purpose by ensuring that the article was rewritten to provide information and not just a credits list for its contributors! I accept it still needs a bit more work here. There's more info on the discussion page. best wishes JRPG 11:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Salam
Assalam Allaykom (Peace be upon you)

i have noticed that you are interested in the Arab World and its Culture, i would like to Invite you to Join the Arab Wiki Project.

our goals are to Increase the Public's Awarness and Develop Articles that are related to the Arab world, and help each others to achieve it, we are all good in certain things, so why not complete each others to make the Arab world a more Understood region for readers in Wikipedia...

i hope you join in, and get to explore the Project more, and add your name as a member in the Project...

Ma Assalama (Peace be with you)

--Arab League User (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Requesting restoration of a page you voted to delete
Sir: I have rewritten the page on Retarded Animal Babies. My version meets all the requirements of Wikipedia. It includes reliable third-party citations and proper formatting and NPOV. Since there are now a number of Wikipedia articles that link to it, I feel that it should be remade.

The rewritten article is temporarily posted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hamsterdunce/sandbox

I have only a secondary relationship with the RAB creator. This is being done as a courtesy to him--we feel that he deserves a decent representation on Wikipedia. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Eric Barbour (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ngoma_oliver.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ngoma_oliver.gif. 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 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 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:MJ12SecretLab.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:MJ12SecretLab.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. BJBot (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

LoveReichel
It seems pretty elitist to delete a page from the wikipedia because it doesn't have enough google hits. I was under the impression that this was "the free encyclopedia". If it truly were free then it would allow any topic, big or small, to be included so that people could be informed on any topic, no matter the magnitude. If this page gets deleted I will have lost all faith in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicalJosh (talk • contribs) 18:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Also I think that you'd feel differently about LoveReichel if you took a listen to our music...we could totally be the face of the "Donate to Wikipedia" front. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicalJosh (talk • contribs) 19:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia, not a repository for all the world's information. While you might see it as elitist, the Wikipedia project has a long-standing set of guidelines for the inclusion of musical groups into the encyclopedia. Primary among them is notability, which should be demonstrated by the quantity and quality of third-party information published about a group. The google count, while by no means an end-all measuring stick, can be a fine early indicator of a group's notability. That the number of results was so low and featured little content aside from self-promotional material leads me to believe that, regardless of quality, LoveReichel hasn't achieved the degree of notability that has been established as a requirement by the Wikipedia community. I would urge you not to lose faith over this instance. Rather, spend some time with the encyclopedia and learn more about its standards and practices. Your group is not alone in the number that have been left out. Consequentially (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:DERM
Do you have an interest in dermatology? If so, I am always looking for more help ;) Regardless, thank you for your work on wikipedia! kilbad (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

New image project
Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects WikiProject Free images, WikiProject Fair use, WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Hillary Clinton armed services committee.jpg
File:Hillary Clinton armed services committee.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Hillary Clinton at the Senate Armed Services Committee.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Next drive
As you are either a participant of WikiProject or the October wikification drive or have signed up to participate in the planned December drive, this probably concerns you. Discussions that have been inactive for a couple weeks regarding the December drive have been reactivated, and we would like you to participate in these discussions, and also consider joining the December drive. We have taken upon ourselves a massive workload, encompassing a backlog reaching June 2008 and comprising articles. Barnstars will be awarded to participating editors, and also, please invite your friends to join! Please do not reply to this message here. Either reply here, here or here.

For the December Drive Coordinators,.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 23:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

Invitation to particpate in the December 2010 Wikification Drive
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 18:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

Please confirm your membership
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 19:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

File source problem with File:No till farming USDA.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:No till farming USDA.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

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


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

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item 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 creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media 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 the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nagina group.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Nagina group.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Joey Heatherton 27 December 1965.jpg


The file File:Joey Heatherton 27 December 1965.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Lower-quality, unused version of File:Watusi, Frug, Shimmy, Twist^ On a carrier^ It's swinging time on board Ticonderoga as Miss Joey Heatherton rocks out wit - NARA - 541853.tif"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

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) 01:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)