User talk:Enayray

Talk to me.

In response to your feedback
Thank you for improving Wikipedia!

David 1217 05:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

&#160;

Chelsea Manning
Hi, Enayray. The image of Chelsea Manning isn't public domain. Even if the US Government used it, that doesn't make it PD. As it wasn't made directly as part of Manning's army employment, we must assume that the copyright belongs to her. The US Gov probably claim a fair use rationale on using/distributing the image, which often we can do (see WP:FUR), but as it's used to depict a person we can't use a non-free image as there's a free alternative available. I'm going to remove the image now (it's nominated for deletion at, I suggest you get involved in the discussion); please don't add it back without first discussing here or on the article's talk page. matt (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

February 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=595635069 your edit] to Melissa Harris-Perry may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * {Infobox person

Ramaa Mosley
I think there is too much there for a PROD to succeed - I could have deleted it tonight. My guess is that someone would be on my talk page within 24h. Any PROD can be disputed even after deletion, I would have had to restore it. Suggest it could be a candidate for WP:AfD to sort it out once and for all.  Ron h jones  (Talk) 22:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Ronhjones (Talk), I think it should be deleted because all of the sources that are cited are for promotional use, rather than informational, and I've had to restore criticizing information because someone has tried to remove it. I don't believe it meets the Wikipedia page standards. Would you recommend and then see where it goes from there? Hugs, Enayray (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Source
Always heard it more often call "late term" not later term. But I guess either would work. Late term gets a lot more google hits Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Doc James : Guttmacher Institute. It was in the 4th citation on the page itself. Also the 25th and 33rd citations. --Enayray (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure it is used just not as often as late term. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)