User talk:Fordmadoxfraud/Archive 2

Orphaned fair use image (Image:New_Mutants_v2_no10_Chris_Bachalo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:New_Mutants_v2_no10_Chris_Bachalo.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 19:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of talkpage comments
Do not remove the talk page comments of others. There isn't even community consensus that attacking comments should be removed, let alone gentle reminders of policy. Jimbo is to be treated as any other editor, and I would remind any other editor of the same policies. I should remind you, also, that you are certainly not supposed to go around biting newbies, and removing text without a real reason is considered, by some, to be vandalism. I understand your sentiment, but I think it was wrongly placed. 65.60.208.212 22:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/UK Resistance (2nd nomination)
Can you be more specific about what exactly you think establishes the notability of this blog in your comment? It would make your opinion a lot stronger since now it's just two votes of people who make opposite assertions with nothing to back it up. - Mgm|(talk) 11:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Bryson says notability is not asserted, you say it is. Without any sort of additional statements, I can't make an informed decision. It doesn't look all that notable to me, but I admit I know nothing about the subject at all, so if you shared your train of thought that would help me a lot. - Mgm|(talk) 08:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Al Taqwa Bank
Surprisingly, you "reverted" your edits, AND used the word "controversial", which was what I had in mind when I was about to type a User talk message from before. Weird. Anyway, do you exactly know what's going on with the page, because at the current, the page has been spell-fixed by myself, and I am astounded as I haven't a single clue about the page; what exactly does it amount to, and what is its purpose? Any help is appreciated. --Qwerty (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okey-dokey, Fordmadoxfraud. My bad. Thanks. :) --Qwerty (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Anyway, do you exactly know what's going on with the page, because at the current, the page has been spell-fixed by myself, and I am astounded as I haven't a single clue about the page; what exactly does it amount to, and what is its purpose? Er, wot? What's the purpose of any page on wikipedia, other than to be informative? Okay, my bad. --Qwerty (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. And sorry if I came off a bit of a prick here. The uncited edits to the article just irritated me. (Also you're right, the anon user can't spell for beans.) Cheers. Ford MF 05:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's alright; you didn't come off a bit of a prick. Anyway, thanks for getting this resolved so quickly. Yep, uncited edits irritate me, too, and the anon editors can't spell... gah. --Qwerty (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

St Finbar's Cathedral
No problem. It's easy to miss sometimes. Realkyhick 21:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Suburbia
Sorry for the edit, didn't realize what I've done. Moebiusuibeom-en 20:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

about the punisher article
I understand the loosed similarities between mack bolan and the punisher, but during the Punisher's first inception in 1973, there's no direct/actual plan to imitate him from the executioner character, but i would still say its notable having cited the interview of don pendleton. I would greatly appreciate your contribution under the "trivia" section of the article. thanks and happy wikiying †B lo o d p ac k†  22:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Rob Liefeld
I've reverted your removal of the original article lead-in for the Rob Liefeld page. The original lead-in is not vandalism and has always been universally agreed upon. "A backlash against his bombastic art style and allegations of plagiarism" are well substantiated, referenced and discussed.

We've undergone a great deal of trolling in the past that has essentially destroyed most of the original article in an attempt to show Liefeld in an entirely favorable light. I'd like to believe that isn't you. If your removal of the lead-in continues, I will be forced to contact admin. B.Soto 00:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * B.Soto, the first, best thing to do is to assume good faith when it comes to other users. If you have a concern about a users edits being "bad faith," a good way to at least get a feel for them as an editor is to check their contributions.  Hope this helps.  --mordicai. 21:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Orichalcum
Before User:Eyrian stops by to justify his removal of the massive and massively irrelevant "Orichalcum in _______" (fiction, film, music, video games, whatever) section, which had overwhelmed the article like a cancer, I just wanted to pop in and say I think his edits are entirely justified. Really all of that stuff fell far, far below any kind of notability. Trivia too trivial. Ford MF 05:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. So can you advice me where and how can I publish my contribution that relate to the intended artical? d@@b 05:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sivaji: The Boss
Several of your points on your primary discussion seem to be controversial. And don't you dare get racism involved, as you were trying to. I kind heartedly, tell you nicely to keep off the article and go care about something else elsewhere. As per several admins I have come upon - they all say the same, a definite A or GA with potential of FA after its release. So please don't come in late, talk some nonsense, hope to get away with it and change things into your wishes. Good heartedly, Universal Hero 16:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply to your post on my discussion page
Hello Fordmadoxfraud. You are right that I made a mistake in my edit summary in regards to comparing the two films. Now as to your edit all I can say is that over the last two years Wikipedia has gotten fairly strict as to its standards for verifiability and sourcing for edits made on its pages. Speculation is to be avoided and similarities of information does not mean that they are connected. In your case it is informed speculation and your learning is to be valued. There are places like IMDb and blogs that you could share this thought but I just don't think that it can go here. However, this is just one editors opinion and I have a couple of suggestions. If you can find a source where this is mentioned - like Christopher Frayling's book on Sergio Leone - then you could give your entry a citation. Also you might make a post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films stating your case and if they agree to it then I will too. I think that your username is quite clever. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 21:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

AC6
Until Namco and/or Sony officially announce that Ace combat 6 will be on both consoles, the page will only say it's on the 360. One magazine's word isn't good enough. ZakuTalk 00:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, then. ZakuTalk 22:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on Dog
Can you revert vandalism on Dog by Mcan2, please? The page is semi-protected, and being an anon, I cannot edit it. --24.136.230.38 20:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Consider it done. Just out of curiosity, since you seem a conscientious enough guy/gal, why don't you sign up for an account so you can take care of vandalism like this on your own?  It takes like thirty seconds.  Ford MF 20:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just create an account by following the link, if you want. --mordicai. 21:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Black Swan
A new participant has decided to put this to arbitration. Somehow, he neglected to list you as an involved party. So, if you're not totally frustrated by this tempest in a teapot, jump right in. Clarityfiend 15:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Lapsed lurker
I have rv'ed your blanking/redirecting of the page. Please discuss major article changes on the talkpage first, particularly if what is essentially happening is article deletion by a non-admin (without a nom or deliberative process). You're probably right in thinking it doesn't deserve a distinct article, however, so I've placed a merge tag on it (with cybersquatting).

Also please assume good faith on the part of your fellow wiki editors, a sentiment which doesn't exactly ring out in your summary OR/Neologism thrown together by one person with no real explanation. Lapsed lurker isn't the greatest article, but there are reasonable refs and information that I'm not convinced is 100% worthless or duplicated elsewhere. Ford MF 22:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So we put a merge tag and then in a week or so we end up redirecting it anyway. Oh well.


 * Did you look at the history of that article? The whole thing was written by one guy. "OR/Neologism thrown together by one person with no real explanation" is 100% accurate and not assuming bad faith. I am sure he had good faith intentions, but that doesn't change the fact that it's an incoherent ramble saying nothing different from other pages and using a term NOBODY in the field uses. "Lapsed lurker" has only 600 some Google hits, mostly of mirrors of the Wikipedia article and some guy who happened to pick it as a user name. DreamGuy 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Anaheim Hills
Good catch. Thanks for spotting it. -Will Beback · † · 18:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

deletion
did not create article. only edited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jenniecbu2 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Bronze rule
Why did you place a speedy deletion notice for Bronze rule on my user talk page? I never even touched that article, let alone created it. I see above that another editor has experienced something similar. Please be more mindful in the future. Thank you. -Severa (!!!) 00:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's an explanation: I changed my username from "Kyd" to "Severa" in March 2006. User talk:Kyd redirects to User talk:Severa for that reason. Someone opened a new account under my old username and this "Kyd" is the person who made the problematic edits in question. -Severa (!!!) 01:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Go to User talk:Majorly. I saw the post you had made on this editor's page. Majorly replied explaining that the editor who created the "Bronze rule" article had the username Kyd, and, when I read that, it all made sense. -Severa (!!!) 01:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Also saw that that new-Kyd has a total of zero contribs to his or her name now that the "Bronze rule" article has been speedied. I'm hoping this is just one of those one-off accounts some problematic editors register for making a couple of hit-and-run edits — I really want to keep my dang redirect. :-) -Severa (!!!) 01:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Wikipedia should have a better mechanism for dealing with this. Ford MF 01:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

masz wpierdol
o kurwa masz chuju taki wpierdol, że się kurwa postarsz ty zasrany matkojebco! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.23.182.44 (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC).


 * You tell him! --mordicai. 16:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do I have to listen to you again?
can u ban me if I give you the finger and ignore you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel Morales (talk • contribs) 01:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Please remember that a vandal has to receive a final warning and continue to vandalize before they can be blocked. Your request for blocking the above editor was made before that final warning.  I've added a final warning to their talk page.  If they continue to vandalize, please report them again. Thanks for helping Wikipedia! wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 03:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

may 19th
i made a legit change, it was not a test edit?

Talbe 23:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

oops
im sorry! im here to build, not break down. No more love notes. thanks for the heads up, im sure you dont have a problem forgiving my mistake.

side note: there is no real guidline to how important something must be that happened on may 19th to be displayed on the wiki page. any grey area there?

Talbe 01:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

ahhhh. my ignorance shows clear as the sun. thanks for being patiento with me. And i appreciate the care you use in taking care of this site, because god knows i use it almost everyday. dont hesitate to call me out on other mistakes.

Talbe 04:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia-editing
FYI: "A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." "Before engaging in a major edit, a user should consider discussing proposed changes on the article discussion/talk page." --Minutae 21:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:IfD
I noticed that you recently nominated some images for deletion. If an image is missing license information, please mark it with {{subst:nld}} (or use {{subst:nsd}} for missing source). These put it into dated categories for deletion without the need for listing it at IfD. In fact, if the image qualifies for any of the speedy deletion criteria for images, tagging it as such is generally preferable to listing at IfD. ~ Bigr  Tex  18:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Emmett Till
See also Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Killing NPOV. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

William Luther Pierce
what exactly makes my change POVed and the one prior to mine non POVed? white nationalism is an euphemism for racism, and to promote a certain point of view in that form is propaganda. i just cleaned the euphemism racists use to promote their point of view. if you are willing to help wikipedias formatting, you should also clear that phrase, which romanticises racist propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.225.121 (talk • contribs)

Renfrew Museum Edits
I apologize for my earlier remarks, I was merely expressing my heartfelt passion regarding the Renfrew Museum. If the article is being considered for deletion due to a lack of sources, I obtained all of the information from the book, "The History of Renfrew County" by one L.R. Perry. The specific chapter which I obtained my information from was "The Town of Renfrew; From 1851-2001". Would this matter be settled if I cited my sources? Thanks in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.221.229 (talk • contribs)

Andretti curse

 * I have added new sources directly covering this topic at Articles for deletion/Andretti Curse. I invite you to review them and consider whether they might change your opinion on deleting the article. Barno 00:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Art of Rhyme Spamming Question
What are the rules around "Professional Reviews" for albums? If we have professional reviews that apply to an album, do we have to rely on a third-party to find them and place them up? For example, if I read a review for another site and posted it, would that be okay, but it's not okay for Art of Rhyme? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtOfRhyme (talk • contribs)

The main site reviewer is definitely an reliable source, but I understand we may fall beneath some level of trust. My question becomes, how does the website artofrhyme.com get "nominated" to be a reliable source? I will continue to read through, but that is something I haven't seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtOfRhyme (talk • contribs)

Fumadores
Thanks for your support on this teeny article. My minor temper tantrum was caused by the fact that the article had already been speedily deleted once before. I attempted to clarify the "notability" factor and put it back, then it gets nominated for deletion again. At least this time, it wasn't a gut-wrenching rip it out right now sort of thing. I've added my voice to the AfD page. Thanks again. Glacierman 02:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This article also needs to go for speedy deletion
Like this article Susnato Chowdhury, the other article created by the same user Susnato also needs to go for speedy deletion. Can you help? --Pinaki ghosh 01:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks dear --Pinaki ghosh 01:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Fordmadoxfraud/clean
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on User talk:Fordmadoxfraud/clean, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because User talk:Fordmadoxfraud/clean fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: '''archived draft of my own talk page. No longer needed. Thanks.''' To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting User talk:Fordmadoxfraud/clean, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate User talk:Fordmadoxfraud/clean itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 21:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Another user? That was me!  Ford MF 21:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Page Needing an Admin's lookover
Hi FordMadoxFraud - I pulled your name out of a random AfD - hope you don't mind. I'm just Jane Doe user with about 4 doz edits here and there. Anyway, I am concerned about the page on Diapers. It has recently been expanded from a starightforward info article to having material of a dubious nature being added - for example, a section on 'diaper discipline' with the references for its assertions being comments on a Google discussion forum(!) This entire section, as well as recent additions and edits elsewhere throughout the page, appear skewed towards adult fetishism. Appears especially since some recent spat over pics and a Talk page for DL's (diaper lovers presumably) getting flagged for deletion and being voted merged with Infantalism. I added a comment noting just some of these concerns on the Talk page today. I can see where its all going so Please would you help out where poss - hand it over to someone by all means. Thanks! Plutonium27 15:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

FordMF is a fast mover : ) Thanks for wading in. Awww but I didn't wanna have to keep going there - I'm just a pikey mum with a hyper-productive baby and consequently have zero tolerance for the wilder fringes of BDSMABDL and furries turning up all over the shop and oh god the lot of them... However, there is nothing there I cannot fix myself - you are absolutely right - and thanks for the advice and encouragement and everything. The stern Sectional Delete Dominatrix is commencing to getting stringent upon their padded asses. Plutonium27 20:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC) and its Isotope

Fair use rationale for Image:NewMutants_px300_23.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:NewMutants_px300_23.jpg. 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 insure 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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. ShakespeareFan00 15:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Missing Rationale tag also removed.  Ford MF 16:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, crap, I haven't been using that template. I'm going to have to go back to all the photos I've uploaded.  Ford MF 17:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia New York Meet-Up
The First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Meetup/NYC. Wish I could make it; thought I'd pass on the invite to you too. --mordicai. 20:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, yeah, August, not July. I'm planning on going.  --mordicai. 16:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your post on User talk:88.160.247.46
I think that you have come over far too strong accusing this user of vandalism. The article in question is about a French saint who would be know as "Sainte" in French. That word and its abbreviation "Ste" can be found later in the article. I hoep that you have not frightened away someone who ahs made useful contrubutions elsewhere. --Peter cohen 15:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. The author has just been in touch with me on my post about their addition to Troilus. So they obviously aren't frightened away. I suppose my perception has been distorted the opposite way by an over sensitive user who says they have been frightened away by the aggressive behaviour of editors. Although I have an inkling that I may have been spoofed on that one. --Peter cohen 15:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia help
Hello wikipedia person, I recently tried to add some information to the vision festival page which you deleted a few hours afterwards. Can you provide some constructive comments for me to get that information back on the page. I do not wish to have it deleted every day as I view the current page more like a cheap 1/8 page PR ad from some corporation and not something that conveys anything about what actually happens at a vision festival. (e-mailed to me by User:151.204.132.213)


 * Well, for starters, you can dig up some news articles that communicate the point you were trying to get across, and cite them. I reverted your edits for several reasons, chief among them was that they smacked of original research, e.g. " In recent years, there has been a few more souls who have sought to also catalog in a 'live' fashion their impression of the on-stage music and still others who are using the music and patrons as a source of energy to inspire more abstract designs."


 * WP:OR will take you to the Wikipedia policy page for NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Wikipedia articles are, broadly speaking, written in the format X says Y.  Basically you find a reliable source, paraphrase what it says in an encyclopedic manner, and make a footnote citation.  Wiki is not a place for writers to generate independent articles, and your personal impressions of what actually occurs at the Vision Festival are, unfortunately, not suitable for the article.  (WP:RS will take you to the RELIABLE SOURCES page.)


 * It's true that the article does focus heavily on the musical performers, but for better or worse that's what the media coverage generally focuses on, giving the dance, film, poetry &c. barely a passing mention.


 * And if you think the article reads like PR now, you should've seen it before.


 * Also that painter dude, so far as I know, is not actually part of the festival in any way. He's at all the shows, but he's at a lot of shows, Vision Festival or not.  Ford MF 15:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * hmm. find someother page, read it, paraphrase it on WP, add footnotes. Can I create an article on my own webpage, use it as OR, site it in WP. I was there, is that not a RS?


 * I understand the OR point.


 * so is this page for the media and it should reflect that only? If so, who decided that? Is each page in wikipedia one persons self-appointed lifelong domain that others have to submit to what they think the article should be? And if so, where is the editors name on each page signifing it?


 * I recall that, I edited an earlier version and then saw the 'pr' rewrite and was aghast)


 * Just becuase he's not 'offically on the program', he's still there. How is anyone supposed to know what to expect to see at the actual event, if all these 'unoffical' bits are lost to removal. Sounds like how the 'mostly harmless' entry was created for the hitchhikers guide ;-'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.132.213 (talk • contribs)


 * No, I'm afraid you creating a web page somewhere and then citing that does not count as a reliable source. I can only imagine you have not actually taken the time to read the really quite succinct Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline, which I urge you to do.  "I was there" is pretty much the textbook definition of original research.


 * And no, each article is not somebody's "self-appointed lifelong domain". I reverted your edit not because the article is in any way "mine", but because I felt the edit was not in conformity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and was therefore detrimental to the article.  Which I hope you understand is not the same thing as saying the content of the edit itself was specious or useless, only that it was not suitable for the Wikipedia article on the Vision Festival.  There is a difference.


 * As I said, Wikipedia articles are a collection of verifiable facts reported in reliable sources. If you're curious about Wikipedia's policies, take a moment to read Policies and guidelines; if you're curious about who crafts these policies and guidelines, how and why, there's the section on how policies are started.  Ford MF 02:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Leisure centres
Hi, there are quite a lot of other existing leisure centre articles that you may want to tag for deletion by the same crieria:
 * Eastern Leisure Centre
 * Fairwater Leisure Centre
 * Western Leisure Centre
 * Llanishen Leisure Centre

More: Do you want to tag them, or would you like me to tag them?(Sloman 20:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Neath Leisure Centre
 * Pontardawe Leisure Centre
 * Pontardawe Swimming Pool

Misunderstanding
Recently i heard about a new island country called Babarossa in a new atlas that had Founded itself just recently. I fully understand that the name of the region involved is similar to a place or charicter from the Pirates of the Carrabean movie, and i understand that the country is not very well heard of. I wanted to make a new article for the knowlege of fellow Wikipedians, and undertook the chalenge to create my first article. I just hope that you reasearch before you delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunswiper (talk • contribs)

Voting
I voted for: Ausir (Paweł Dembowski), Kate (River Tarnell), Kim Bruning, Michael Snow, UninvitedCompany (Steve Dunlop). Ford MF 17:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:13mcgiven.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:13mcgiven.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. Qst 16:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to Join WikiProject Crime
Would you like to upgrade from an honorary member to a full member of the WikiProject Criminal Biography? Jmm6f488 07:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Rob liefeld
Thank you for your post. I have now corrected my oversight. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 18:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge
I recently proposed a merge on the diaper page. Only one person has voted so far, so I picked your name off the talk page to ask your opinion. Please vote. :) Coop41 02:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Mark Gabriel
I don't know if you are interested but there is a user intent on reverting Mark Gabriel to the previous version that is borderline hagiographic and full of unverified claims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_A._Gabriel Jayran 17:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

 * Aw, my first barnstar! Ford MF 22:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Abascantus
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of Abascantus, and it appears to include a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 20:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've taught CSBot about the SmithDGRBM tag. Any other you know about that should be avoided?  &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. An article you recently created, Abascantus, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Nen yedi  • (Deeds•Talk) 20:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your notice, I assumed that the content on the other website was copyrighted. Happy editing! Nen  yedi  • (Deeds•Talk) 21:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Hello sir,

I am writing to inquire as to why you labeled those edits as 'vandalism'. As per WP:EL, I believe these links contain neutral and accurate information, relevant and valuable to the articles they were placed on.

They are not for profit, and are in fact linking to another Wikipedia-esque website which has been included on Wikipedia's own Interwiki-map by other administrators. ( foo ) I request you please reconsider their value.

Kind Regards,

--72.143.255.51 21:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop being coy. The links you put in all of those articles only introduces the text "Spiderman invented mosh" into the article, and conceals it by having the vandalism appear as a regular interwikimedia link.  Ford MF 21:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure I understand your reference to "Spiderman invented mosh". I was simply trying to add links to another good reference site where readers can continue their reading.
 * I want you to know that I have no intention of maliciously affecting any article on Wikipedia, in fact quite the opposite.
 * I would like to add that most of these articles on Wikipedia also contain links to Marvel Directory, a site with far less information.
 * I believe linking to the Marvel Database is more in-keeping with the WP:EL policy.
 * Would you not agree that the Marvel Database is a good, reliable site for Marvel Comics information?
 * Regards,
 * --72.143.255.51 21:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Look at the Diffs of the edits you made. Ford MF 21:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I did and I am sorry, but the only changes I see I have made were adding, removing or reorganizing links, nothing even pertaining to Spider-Man.
 * I have not changed any content other than that.
 * Would you not comment on my above statement regarding WP:EL, the Marvel Directory links and the fact that the Marvel Database is indeed a worthwhile reference site?
 * --72.143.255.51 21:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous user altered the template which is why the gibberish was showing up. It has been reverted. IrishGuy talk 21:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe can someone protect the "MDP" template to prevent this from happening again?
 * --72.143.255.51 21:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I put it on my watchlist, so I'll be keeping an eye on it from now on. Ford MF 21:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool! Good idea.
 * So, um would you consider readding those links that were removed?
 * If not, I will understand. I will not readd them myself, just so there is no question as to my motives.
 * If you do decide to readd those links, just for my own knowledge... should we use or foo, or can we use either?
 * Cheers,
 * --72.143.255.51 22:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Already done. Honestly, the syntax you were using is just fine.  It's the template itself that someone messed with.  Apparently you were making perfectly okay edits.  I'm the dickhead that tarred and feathered you for nothing.  Ford MF 22:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ha ha ha. No worries.
 * I am kinky like that; It was fun... ;)
 * --72.143.255.51 22:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Du’a Khalil Aswad photo
You may be interested in the continuing discussion of the Du’a Khalil Aswad photo. --S.dedalus 04:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Madman Hulk.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Madman Hulk.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 04:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Abas, son of Lynceus
You made some fine edits to this short article. &mdash; BillC talk 21:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Cyropedia
With reference to this edit of yours, would you please add a proper source for the assertion that Abradatas and Pantheia of the Cyropedia are actually historical figures? Thanks. As you might already know, Abradatas and/or Pantheia (and/or their romance) are not substantiated by epigraphic or other documentary evidence. Cyropedia, which is a novel, is the only "evidence" we have of them. -- Fullstop 02:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC) ps: please reply here, saves the back-and-forth.
 * I don't know what to tell you. I cited the statement, to a reputable source widely accepted as reliable on Wikipedia.  If William Smith thought Abradatas was fictional, he would have said so.  If you dislike the reference or think it is untrustworthy, the onus is now on you to provide some citations or documentation calling the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology entry, or Abradatas' existence, into question.


 * And at any rate, that would more properly be a debate at the Abradatas article, not the Cyropaedia one. Ford MF 19:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that ref, but a quick check didn't turn up anything that might suggest they were historical characters. Did I miss something? -- Fullstop 19:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit collision) Um, you are the one making the assertion that they were historical. Not Smith, and nor are you citing him for it. And further, you did not originally cite Smith, instead cited Cyropedia, which is a primary source. And third, "what Smith thought" (or did not) is both OR and irrelevant, after all, absence of X is not evidence for not-X. And finally, I don't have to provide evidence that what you are asserting is false. You have to provide evidence for what you are saying is true.
 * You know, all you actually need to do is rephrase that clause to not make assumptions and stick to what Smith is explicitely saying, but instead you're getting all het up. Relax, and if you can't handle it, just say so, and I will. No big deal. -- Fullstop 19:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. Sorry I snapped, it's a stressful day at work.  Ford MF 19:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * no biggie. If you don't mind, I'd like to flesh it out a little to make it more relevant. -- Fullstop 20:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is something else that might interest you:




 * -- Fullstop 20:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh. That is interesting.  I haven't really gotten on the Iranica bandwagon yet, but clearly I need to.  Thanks.  Ford MF 20:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:1905-05-20_Saturday_Evening_Post.jpg
I have tagged Image:1905-05-20_Saturday_Evening_Post.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. Thank you. ~  Wi ki her mit  02:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Ladies Home Journal March 1922.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ladies Home Journal March 1922.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 05:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

rv of my talk:Timothy Stansbury blanking
I know page blanking raises a red flag, it does to me too, but I blanked that talk page trying to remove an anon's trollish comment ("Not a very notable event") about the shooting. 'Undo' apparently doesn't work if there's only one entry in the history, and in trying to work around that I removed the comment manually and neglected to leave an edit summary, which certainly does look de facto vandal-ish. Sorry about that. Cheers, CliffC 19:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know it's a weird gray area. I didn't think your blanking was vandalism, but I do also feel comments have to be pretty far beyond the pale of trollism and vandalism before they should be removed from talk pages.  Ford MF 20:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:NewMutants 51.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:NewMutants 51.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 23:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Mistake
Dear Fordmadoxfraud, that was a mistake and be sure that it wasn't deliberate. Thanks.Aparhizi 23:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

New York City Meetup
The agenda for the next meetup includes the formation of a Wikimedia New York City local chapter. Hope to see you there!--Pharos 20:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Arborius
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Arborius, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Arborius is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Arborius, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 08:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:MitchumCalypso.jpg
I have tagged Image:MitchumCalypso.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. Thank you. Keysuc7 21:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

looking for assistance with Labor Day Carnival
It is my opinion that editor, Fodient is pushing NPOV on the Crown Heights, Brooklyn Labor Day Carnival by consistently insisting that it is particularly "violent".

I notice that he also has some strong opinions on the line-of-duty shooting of NYPD Officer Timoshenko that occurred in the same neighborhood (Crown Heights, Brooklyn) and by members of some of the same ethnic groups (African American) that primarily participate in disputed parade and festival. Furthermore he has put in some rather inflammatory statements on his Edit summaries for various items, (see comments regarding Sean Bell, so I wonder if grief and outrage could be clouding his judgement on this particular item. CyntWorkStuff 04:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:NewMutants 62.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:NewMutants 62.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 09:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

About "vandalism" in the cannibalism article
Please, before reverting anything just because ALL CAPS in wikipedia fans' minds always means vandalism, at least try to read (and, if you feel especially bright, understand) whatever the edit is about. There is an error in that article (you know that when a human eats a cat it is not cannibalism, do you?), maybe the edit I did was not the best way to solve it, but just mindlessly reverting it and leaving things the way they were before will never improve anything, and that is exactly what wikipedia is lacking these days. Please, take a little time to read the edit and try to come with a more thoughtful way to improve wikipedia's (and in particular, this article's) quality. Again, here it is for your convenience:

"several cannibalistic acts on approximately 20 cats A HUMAN EATING CATS IS NOT CANNIBALISM, WIKIPEDIA. DUH. DON'T JUST STAY THERE AND REVERT THIS, CORRECT SOMETHING ONCE IN A WHILE DAMNIT."

I thought it would be clear enough with the "correct something once in a while" clause and all. Sorry if my pretentions were too high for this site or its administrators (or whatever your status in here is). 190.55.83.86 (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:NFOYC1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:NFOYC1.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 (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ufoes1.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Ufoes1.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 18:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

FDNY and your To-Do List
Thanks for the revert on the FDNY article. Have no fear, however, that the editor who added it will again put that uncited information back in the article by the end of the day. I also saw on your To-Do list that you want to add an article for Russel Timoshenko. I'm not sure if you saw this, but Murder of Russel Timoshenko exists and could be expanded to cover his entire life. --Daysleeper47 15:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, aren't they close to--if not already transgressing--3RR? Anyway, yeah, a lot of my to-do list is hopelessly antiquated.  Mostly it's there to prod me to work more on the things I mean to, rather than blindly click around fixing this and that.  Thanks.  Ford MF (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit of the Theseus article
External links were removed. ISBN number was added to provide source detail. I consider the press release link as needed information and I would like to add it under the External Links category. Please check the edit and let me know. Thanks for your input.Geosop (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Nino Tempo and April Stevens
Your rationale does not apply to redirects. Wjhonson (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops I've been doing so many changes I forget what I had writen. This is the stub for an article on a *group* with that name.  Groups can have their own entires seperate from individual participants in that group.  For example there is an entry on The Beatles and a seperate one on Ringo Starr.  This group is the same.  They had work as a group (duet) and also seperately.Wjhonson (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You claim that there isn't enough material to make a seperate article about their group. I disagree.  My claim that there is, is based on that material, in my possession which I'm going to be uploading.  Your claim is based on what ? Wjhonson (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I said "I'm *going* to be uploading". That is a future tense.  I would direct you to the article on Sonny and Cher, and then the seperate article on Sonny Bono.  There is no way to redirect a group to individual entries, which means anyone looking for the group name gets nothing from Wikipedia, which rather defeats the purpose of Wikipedia.  If the two *seperate* articles are stubs they should be merged into the group article and then redirected in their own right.  That would make the most sense, I'm sure you can agree. Wjhonson (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of James Barker (athlete)
Hi, I noticed that you requested a speedy deletion of the above article. There has been many a deletion discussion regarding this issue, and it has been determined that all Olympic athletes are notable enough to receive their own article, whether or not they were medal winners, per the clause in WP:BIO of athletes who competed at the top level in their field. I don't agree with it myself, but unfortunately that's the way things go with notability. Anyhow, I have (grudgingly) undone the deletion and thought I would leave you a note. Cheers, CP 01:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not terrible in theory. In practice, however... Cheers, CP 01:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Tyra
Hi. Since the afd nomination, a lot of work has gone into the article. It now satisfies WP:NPOV. Please take another look at the article, and if you feel differently about the article, please update your afd vote accordingly. thanks. best, -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 21:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed the WP:COI as well. But I don't let that bother me too much, I just look at the content. The school website says that he was the dean at the school. A dean of a school should be a shoo-in for an article. It usually means that he is highly respected by his peers, and considered the top in his field. best, -- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 23:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Your note
Hi. Thanks for your note. I just wanted to point out that I have answered, in case you aren't watchlisting my page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pocketfulofmiraclesmovieposter.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Pocketfulofmiraclesmovieposter.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. Issuecheck (talk) 04:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni
Thank you for the help on the article on Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni. However, your edit was again reverted by User:LGBTRights123. I have never been involved in any sort of conflict, and I am not sure how to go about contacting an administrator. I have left a message on this user's talk page, yet he/she continues to revert and insert quotes from his very own source ([http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050815/kim The Nation) that are complete fabrications from what the actual article states. He has broken the the 3 revert rule and I would like to explain all of this to an administartor. Can you help me with this? I am not sure how to. Thank you. ExRat (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 4 reverts leads to a 3RR block. You're still within the limit if you revert LGBTRights123's edits. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You're invited!
...to the next New York City Meetup!

In the morning, there are exciting plans for a behind-the-scenes guided tour of the American Museum of Natural History.

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues (see the last meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Skyrocket.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Skyrocket.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 (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fearlessvampirekillers.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Fearlessvampirekillers.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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 06:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:G-string murders.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:G-string murders.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 (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:FF v1 317.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:FF v1 317.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) 04:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Brandon Mayfield
Hi-- I notice that quite a while ago, you commented that the Brandon Mayfield article needed better inline refs. I completely agree, it's still in pretty bad shape. Wondering if you might want to collaborate on this, maybe get the article up to B class or possibly good enough to nominate for GA. You game? -Pete (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * More committments at work have equaled less time on Wikipedia these last few weeks. I wouldn't want to volunteer to help you out and then bail on you.  Maybe in a few weeks.  Ford MF (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

New mailing list
There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it!  Cbrown1023   talk   21:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You are invited!
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates. This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Popular Magazine April 7 1915.jpg is in the public domain
I changed the copyright tag on this image to PD-US because it was published before 1923. Did you scan this or find a copy on the web? The source information should be updated. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't have it tagged as PD-US already? What a dummy.  I found a copy on the web doing a search for PD Wyeth art.  It was almost a year ago, so I don't remember where it came from though.  These days I only upload PD images to the commons, and I'm a little savvier about appropriate copyright tagging.  Cheers.  Ford MF (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:1948 03mar.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1948 03mar.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions.

multiple rvs on marilyn monroe
Hadnt noticed that it was referenced! Just checked the referenced now and rv'd myself! Thanks for the alert. In fact, I had restored that section twice myself. But then, I thought maybe it was a section added for vandalizing. Saw the newspaper report cited only now. Thanks again Prashanthns (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:LEGION '90 no 14.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:LEGION '90 no 14.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. NotifyBot (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ASS1.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:ASS1.JPG. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Thanks for your help on saving the Dario Poggi article from deletion. I greatly appreciate it. Chris (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)