User talk:GeneralPatton/Archive3

Dear Wikipedia !

For my university dissertation I search all over the world for COLOR photos about Hungarian politicians bevor 1945, and I have found one of those here!!

It is: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e1/U-boat_1_HitlerHortyPuttk.jpg ("Hitler and Regent Miklós Horthy of Hungary observing Kriegsmarine U-Boat maneuvers in 1938.")

I would know: - From WHERE is it ? (book, institut etc.)gu - Are there perhaps OTHER color photos too, where this photo can be found ?

Thank You: Tibor (Hungary) - tibi@lectio.jak.pkke.hu

Otto Skorzeny image
Could you check out your image of Otto Skorzeny (Skorzeny.png)? I have a few questions about it which I listed on its talk page. Thanks!

Sietse 00:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi my name is Raul Calderon Im from El Salvador and I like to study the IIww, special the tactics & strategics and I will really apreciate if you can show me more maps like the operation bragation & the operation barbarroja. Sorry write here but i did not know how i can contact to you. If you want to help me please send me a mail to geoxe_51@hotmail.com or sir_stephen_51@yahoo.com. Thank you again i hope you can help me.

pd. Sorry i cannot speek english pretty well i hope you understand to me

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.87.12.229 (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, Sir!
Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:08, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. Cribcage 06:21, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Admin Candidacy
Hello, I saw that you raised some objections to my candidacy for admin. I just wanted to let you know that I attempted to discuss what I felt might have been your concern here. Thank you for your time, and I'd be happy to answer any further questions you may have. Páll 09:13, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RFC pages on VfD
Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:43, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Posen
Thanks for all your help. Mackensen (talk) 07:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image tag
Hi! Thanks for uploading the following images:


 * Image:EK 1class.png
 * Image:EK 2class.png

I notice they currently don't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to each to let us know its copyright status?

You can use   if you wish to release your own work under the GNU Free Documentation License,    if you wish to release your own work to the public domain,    if you claim fair use of someone else's work, and so on. Click here for a list of the various tags.

If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the image from, and I'll tag it for you. Thanks so much. Denni ☯ 03:47, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Charles Darwin
User:Fastfission and others have been on a crusade to delete the mention of Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln sharing a birthday. I have remained civil but others have been flaming. FastFission posted a biased comment on RfC which I have made neutral (I hope). Would you be interested in supporting my side? If so, please start at Talk:Charles_Darwin. Of course, that's my side, but the other side is strongly represented in the rest of the Talk page.Thanks Vincent 04:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello GeneralPatton!

I wonder if you have any knowledge on the economy of the SFRY, if so im trying to setup a good article on the economy of SFRY, but since i was born late in that country, and dont live there now, i dont have much information.

Foant

Vojvodina
Sir!

I have noticed your involvement with the Kosovo article. I am not sure about your interest in the Vojvodina article, but I'm having a bit of a problem there. There is a user who's not discussing, but has reverted his own version three times on the last calendar day (27/12/2004). Could you advice me on how to handle this, or perhaps have a look at it yourself? Thanks! --Najroda 01:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

fac notice
On Dec 7 you left a fac notice on Talk:Special relativity but I can't find any corresponding entry on Featured article candidates. Should the fac noticed be removed? 217.94.146.56 11:34, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link (Featured article candidates/Special relativity). Having seen the discussion there (especially Cadwgan Gedrych) it's probably wise not to feature this article. (Not because of the article ... ) 217.94.146.56 16:16, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please tag images of yours
Your uploaded images linked to at Shuttle Buran currently don't have any image copyright tags. Wikipedia needs its images tagged to be able to use them in the future. You may want to release it under the GFDL with, into the public domain with  , or claim fair use with. See this for more. 119 19:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:Hadrian 01.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Hadrian 01.jpg. Please leave a note on that page about where you got the image because of copyright law. If you have any questions, just leave a message on my talk page. --Ellmist 14:49, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:Von_Weichs_colorportrait.jpg
How about indicating the source of this image? All images on Wikipedia should have a source. Just a license tag isn't sufficient. Especially not if you're claiming fair use. (Yes, I know, WWII image and so on... still, a source is needed!) Lupo 13:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I presume you have seen my note above, since you have edited since I posted it. Please do provide sources for the images you've uploaded. I just cannot understand why you seem to consistently ignore these requests (apparently I'm not the only one who's bugging you to do this...) You self-identify as a member of the Forum for Encyclopedic Standards &mdash; don't they advocate to cite your sources? (I must admit that I haven't read the "encyclopedic standards" page.) Also, please note that international copyright law (the Berne Convention) requires proper attribution of sources when quoting. Using others' images is a form of quoting. Note also that sources are mandatory especially for fair use claims. So why not just follow the guidelines shown to you each time you upload an image? I must say I am at a loss as to how to get you to supply sources and have taken the liberty to ask others to comment on this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Problematic image uploads. Lupo 08:55, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Von Kleist
Hi. General Ewald von Kleist is sometimes given as Paul von Kleist (e.g. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERkliest.htm) so it makes sense to host his page where I moved it to. Then Ewald von Kleist can host the disambiguation page. Ewald Heinrich von Kleist is still alive. He was prepared to make a sucide attack on Hitler by carrying live grenades and then leaping on the Fuehrer. An interesting fellow. Jooler 18:36, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. Regarding Ewald Georg von Kleist. I looked this guy up and his name is given in various forms so I decided to look at German Wikipedia and his article is at Ewald Jürgen Georg von Kleist, so I'm gonna go with this name. Jooler 23:01, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi. There was another one Ewald Christian von Kleist confusing matters. His dates are 1715-1759. Some sources give these dates for Ewald Georg von Kleist, but I think I have the correct dates for him now. Sure The Field Marshal at Paul Ewald von Kleist kind of makes sense, but don't you think dropping the Ludwig is a bit confusing. You are missing out one of his initials. If you do change it, please change the link on German Wikipedia. Jooler 23:52, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * If he were P.E.L. von Kleist, I wouldn't argue with you, but he is P.L.E. von Kleist, which you are proposing to turn into P.E. von Kleist. This is a bit like changing J.R.R Tolkien into R.R. Tolkien. Do you get my point? I think for the sake of clarity it's better to use the full name in this case, because it then avoids any ambiguity whatsoever. Actually some sources put the Ewald in brackets, so it may have been a nickname rather than what he was christened. Jooler 08:29, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Heinz Guderian
Why do you keep removing the link from Heinz Guderian page? Halibutt 09:02, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * ..? Halibutt

Everyking
He's the subject of an RFAr currently. There's some dispute over the proposed decision, though; as a user who hasn't been involved in this dispute much, would you mind weighing in on the talk as to what punishment (if any) you feel is appropriate? In particular, there's been little discussion on the possibility of asking Everyking to reapply for adminship outside the circle of those who were deeply involved here; Reene, Mackensen and I all feel Everyking's conduct is unbecoming of an administrator, while naturally Everyking vehemently opposes us. It'd be a great help if you could share your opinion here. Thanks, and have a great day. Johnleemk | Talk 11:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

DU article
Is there a reason why the article:


 * is so long
 * quotes from the site at such length
 * reads like an ad ?

Ollieplatt 01:35, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Suggested Reading re Ollieplatt
Hi, I see you've met Olliepratt. Thanks for the support.

I'm going to go read the article on Heinz Guderian (I already know who he was).

FYI:

Requests_for_arbitration

Requests_for_arbitration/Libertas/Evidence

Requests_for_arbitration/Libertas/Proposed_decision

Note that Ollieplatt has been deemed likely to be Libertas and about a dozen other user IDs by several Wikipedia developers who have presented technical evidence. The evidence page cites numerous examples of Ollieplatt engaging in disruptive editing and violations of wikipedia policies. The proposed decisions range up to a one year ban.

&mdash; Davenbelle 01:37, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

re:
 * I know he's also using User:64.170.195.250, here's one of his "contributions" . Ollie's probably the man behind that IP because when I blocked it, I got e-mails from him asking me to unblock him. GeneralPatton 01:44, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure the arbitrators would be interested in this. Please considerposting this to the above evidence page. Thanks. &mdash; Davenbelle 01:49, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

p.s. Ollieplatt just got blocked over Democratic Underground. Thanks for your participation. Now I can go read the piece on Heinz Guderian. &mdash; Davenbelle 02:06, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Group 3RR policy propozal
You wrote you should definitely draft a policy proposal and put it up for a review - could you point me to some example how this was done, so I could base my proposal on this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:33, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) PS. Perhaps you would be interested in Request for Comments on Talk:Blitzkrieg - I'd appreciate any input there. This is a good article, close to FAC renomination, but I am so far unable to reach a compromise with user 119 :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:33, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3 revert rule and abuse by the moderators | possible right extremist abuse
Possibly the issues raised in the above link are interesting for you: in essence User:Toytoy is arguing that it is inapropriate and POV to call David Irving a holocaust denier on Bombing of Dresden in World War II, I am arguing that is is NPOV and cogent to that article, and we should be aware of the political context of relating holocaust denial and the bombing, a matter especially sensitive in view of Sunday's memorial. Charles Stewart 13:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Energia images
Greetings. I was image tagging, when I came across Image:Energia 1986 01.jpg, Image:Energia pad 01.jpg, and Image:Energia 1986 02.jpg. I was unable to determine the copyright status. Could you add proper image copyright tags to them? Pictures without tags will eventually be deleted. Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 03:01, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Also, the Image sleuths are trying to determine the source of the Iron cross images you uploaded, Image:EK 1class.png and Image:EK 2class.png. Do you remember where you got them? Thanks again, – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:04, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Edit block for Hitler
Whyc has this article been blocked from editing by User:GeneralPatton with no explanation here. What is the problem? When will it be resolved? Please can we have a debate so this article can again be opened up. --Squiquifox 17:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) Also why did you reedit this article after putting the restriction notice on it in breach of Protected page policy? Also should you have put the restriction notice? given you have been involved in the editorial dispute, again against policy--Squiquifox 17:37, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ok. i'll do comment on my changes in more detail from now on. I am rather new to editing in wikipedia, so excuse me if i don't know some stuff. ben 10:51, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

You definitely ought to take it easy, this is a particularly controversial article, so patience. GeneralPatton 14:26, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is this not involvement? I would like to see another administrator involved in this case? --Squiquifox 18:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the problem is you did not tell us why you have restricted the article - leaving us to guess. Also editing the photo clearly had nothing to do with the dispute, but it looks as if you are saying others cannot edit but I can, even if this is not your intention. Please can you explain yourself at Talk:Adolf Hitler. Those of us not involved in the dispute but may want to edit in other ways at least have the right of an explanation. Also when do you intend to remove the restriction notice?--Squiquifox 19:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have looked and do appreciate the problem. I am not disputing your motives for putting the restriction notice on the arrticle, just the way it was done without reference to other editors; i.e. by explaining what you did at Talk:Adolf Hitler. While I appreciate your responding to my messages, I would prefer to see something in the Talk page, including how long the restriction will last.--Squiquifox 20:54, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Block of Adolf Hitler
Hi GeneralPatton, I have no problems with any of your actions surrounding your protecting the article Adolf Hitler. However I think whenever an article is protected, it is best if an explanation is given on the talk page of that article. I have posted the following on Talk:Adolf Hitler:


 * Although I think the block was probably warranted, I would appreciate an explanation here as to what the situation is with regard to the block. Specifically the reasons for the block, and when and under what circumstances the block will be lifted. I think it is always helpful to explain these things on the talk page whenever a block occurs. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 17:27, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Would you mind responding there? (In addition, you can, of course, if you like, also make a more personal response either here or on my talk page ;-) Thanks. Paul August ☎ 17:47, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have answered your inquiry over at Talk:Adolf Hitler. GeneralPatton 22:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Paul August ☎ 23:06, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Military Collaboration of the week
Howdy Patton. Just thought I'd let you know that we have a Military Collaboration of the week currently up if you'd like to contribute to it. Oberiko 12:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gene Poole is back
I don't think the issues we had three to six months ago with Gene Poole will be a problem today, since the three revert rule now has teeth in it and the remove personal attacks policy has been formulated. In the old days, Gene Poole could not remove a personal attack directed against him without getting in to a revert war. These days, that is no longer the case, and, indeed, I removed a personal attack directed against him on the Talk:Empire of Atlantium/archive page. I think the new policies have greatly improved things, and I don't think the old wars will be around still. Samboy 20:48, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Titan cassini 1.jpg listed for deletion
An image that you uploaded, Titan cassini 1.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion because it lacks source and license information, and it is not used in any articles. Please go there to voice your opinion (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Image source
Thank you for uploading Image:SkorzenyBW.jpg. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you. --02:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Temporary blocking request
Hallo, can I ask you to block temporarily the article Goce Delchev until the differences between me and the anonymous user who keeps reverting are resolved? I have provided a source list and have asked him to review it before reverting again but he doesn't seem to wanna do it... VMORO 23:42, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, thank you. I'll probably contact you in the next days to deblock it - I doubt there will be any real discussion on the talk page, these are hit-and-run expeditions... VMORO 22:14, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, General, can I ask you to remove the protection on Goce Delchev? We seem to have reached a working compromise solution. Thanks in advance!!! VMORO 23:43, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Horthy photos
Dear GeneralPatton !

Dou You have any COLOR photograph about Hungarian admiral Miklós HORTHY ? If yes, could You send them to me, please ?

Thanks, Tibi (Hungary) tibi.82@freemail.hu

Image:Antonius Pius 01.jpg
Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 05:33, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright
You know that your eligible contributions to wikipedia must be gfdl, and the same goes for images. Can I change the tags on some of your images to GFDL from copyrighted, or do you want them deleted? Zeimusu | (Talk page) 14:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Waffen-SSposter01.jpg

 * Hi. I noticed you marked the image as PD. How can this be PD? Please respond on the image's talk page. I have re-applied the PUI deletion warning until this is resolved. Thanks. RedWolf 05:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

question on SkorzenyBW image
Greetings!

I work for a non-profit and am writing a high school curriculum on war crimes tribunals that includes an exercise regarding Otto Skorzeny's 150th Brigade. I'd love to use the black and white image you uploaded of Skorzeny, but can you tell me who owns the copyright, or at least where you got the image from? I'd really appreciate any information toward that end, so I know who to write to for permission to print it in my unit.

Thank you in advance!

Poll
Hey, you may be interested in voting for this Poll Samboy 05:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Skorzeny image
Please see Help desk. Bovlb 14:12:17, 2005-07-27 (UTC)

Erwin Rommel
What is sneaky about the part ? Also what context do you attribute to the quotes ? Since fact of Rommel's presence in Poland as commander of Hitler's personal security isn't disputed nor are the quotes disputed why do you keep deleting them ? So far it looks like whitewashing Rommel. PS:I added the same topic in the talk since edit page doesn't list my previous post--Molobo 00:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems(Looking at Guderian and Rommel edits of yours) that you are interested in hiding their misdeeds during the war and promoting a rather whitewashed view of those officers ? Correct me if I am wrong.--Molobo 09:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Also you didn't answer my questions.Since you don't argue that the quotes aren't true and Rommel's presence in Poland isn't disputed what is the reason for your deletation of them.The same with Guderian case of taking away property from Polish owners ?--Molobo 09:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, Patton! I don't recommend engaging in an argument war with Molobo, since he is blinded by his nationalist views and never, ever cares abour reaching agreements on his POVs. He is currently on a self appointed anti-german crusade, deleting information from nearly every imaginable german topic and staining article with POVs. I already have alerted admins of this and actions will most likely be taken shortly. Meanwhile, allow me to thank you for your valuable contributions to the Erwin Rommel article, and I encourage you to remain vigilant against more possible edits by molobo in his usual POV, disrespectful of others' opinions and anti-german fashion. Let me know if I can be of assistance, and nice to meet you! -- Cadorna 11:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Two comments from Cadorna : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=German_1st_Mountain_Division&action=history "(Removed extreme POV - you call Yad Vashem "trustworthy"??? Oh COME ON!!)" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=12th_SS_Panzer_Division_Hitlerjugend&action=history "(Serious sources only, please - using www.jewishlibrary.org as a source on this matter is like quoting the KKK on the Black Power article)" Do you symphatise with his views ? --Molobo 16:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Greetings, GeneralPatton. Regarding your comment on my Talk Page, the answer is yes, gladly. I also take this chance to say that, being Jewish myself, I don't find Cadorna's comments insulting in any way, I tend to believe they are intended to provide examples of what can be considered unneutral sources on sensitive issues. Shauri 17:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As I said, count me in. I'm kinda unexperienced at the arbitration procedures, tho, so I'd suggest that you instrument the steps; I'll be glad to provide my testimony whenever needed. Hugs, Shauri 19:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Cadorna
Sorry, are you trying to talk to me on Cadorna's talk page, or are you addressing somebody else there ? I think I'm not following you. If you're not talking to me then I apologize for this intrusion. If you are talking to me, why don't you use my talk page to avoid such confusion ? --Lysy (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV and writing style
Good, but NPOV means Neutral Point Of View. Do you think that whitewashing Nazis now is neutral indeed ? Which of my edits do you consider POVish then ? --Lysy (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not accusing you of bad will, just ask you to consider that where there are more than one, often contradictory, points of view, the neutral one should be taking all of them into account. To some extent at least. --Lysy (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Why did you erase war crimes of Waffen SS Wiking?
And restored that it had no war crimes record ? They killed Jews in Lwow area(source was given) --Molobo 14:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I just combined your aditions with the existing intro. Do you see it now? GeneralPatton 14:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes thanks.I added more details and an online source.--Molobo 15:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

user Molobo
Hey Gen.Patton

Thanks for the heads-up with what has been going on. I've attempted to be reasonable and rebuff his claims (see User_talk:Molobo, if he doesn't stop his frequent POV edits, then I think that a arbcom would be the only way to go. Thanks again.--Ansbachdragoner 00:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:Fettes.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Fettes.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 18:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC) This image isn't used anywhere, but available here if you want to use it. Thuresson 21:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Func's RfA :)
General, sir, I appreciate the tactical support you were able to supply me! Thank you for your vote for my adminship. :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e, ) 03:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Eshmunazar/Celeritertextor
Hi, I saw you reverted a large chunk of text on Croton, with Eshmunazar/Celeritertextor as the reason...who is that, and why should we remove their edits? Is there a discussion about this somewhere? Adam Bishop 04:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow! Thanks...too bad I didn't see Robert de Torppa before, I would have spotted that problem right away! Adam Bishop 05:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Hi, general. I would like to ask you for some advice, becaue I was insulted personally by millosh in the talk page about Bosnian language. User Millosh first came and deleted some parts from the article, then he called me a few times fascist and liar. I will quote him:


 * You (said that you) are a fascist. I am sure that I know better dialectoloty of dialects which are spoken by Bosniaks, as well as phonology of Bosnian language then Bosniak Dado (he is an architect, I am a linguist). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 23:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * And it is clear that you are a fascist... --millosh (talk (sr:)) 17:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You are 100% lier. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 17:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, you are giving proofs that you are a fascist. And, please, tell me who is "Serb linguist" here? --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * So, you are saying that your fascistic behaviour is OK? --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

So should I just ignore him, or there is a policy for these attacks. And this is not the first time, he is very rude, and he repates those insults all the time as a pressure, for implementing serb ideas in the articles. Thanks in advance.Emir Arven 20:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, for your advice. I have also collected other insults from that user and other hard-core nationalists (for instance in Srebrenica massacre article), so I would like to inform Wikimedia, because that user is going to star local Wikimedia for Serbia, and it would be a shame for Wikimedia to have people who deny genocide proved by ICTY.Emir Arven 16:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

And what about fascistic behaviour on this Wikipedia?
Please, look at Talk:Bosnian language as well as reverts with a lot of bad faith, xenophobia, agression... Those were not personal attacs. If someone says that someone else "must not edit articles because (s)he belongs to some nation/ethicity/etc.", it is fascism. As well as if someone says something which is not truth, this person is lier. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 04:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This is not true. I didn't say that. My comment was that I don't see how Serb linguist opinions are relevant in the article about Bosnian language, because there is a sentence which says: "Bosniak language" (which is not official name of the language, it is I repaet Bosnian-ISO-639) is prescribed name in Serbian language. How is this relevant. Please quote me when I "said" that "someone must not edit the articles because he belongs to some nationa".Emir Arven 16:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You said: "I dont see, how anything is relevant regarding Serb comments about Bosnian language!Emir Arven 20:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)" -- and this is the first personal attack on the page based on you xenophobia because: --millosh (talk (sr:)) 17:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Lets go one by one. First of all you didn't prove your saying: "If someone says that someone else "must not edit articles because (s)he belongs to some nation/ethicity/etc." I never said smth like that. Emir Arven 18:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Second, you quoted me when I answerd to your comment (this is your comment): "The information "what SR. and HR nationalists think and like" is not relevant inside of the article about Bosnian language. More relevant story is said before (about what do think RS and Serbian authorities as well as what do think Serbian and Croatian linguists)." Emir Arven 18:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Then I said that I dont see how any opinion (made by either linguists or nationlists that are in the article as information) from Serbia is relevant, because Serb policy toward Bosnia, Bosniaks and Bosnian language (I showed you some statements) is hostile and it will be until Serbian governmet stops to give financial support to War Criminals and until Serbia arrests the biggest war criminals Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic.Emir Arven 18:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If you don't realize what is the difference between Serbian nationalists and Serbian linguists -- you have a real problem with xenophobia. This is a fascism. And if you continue with fascism, I would ask for permanent ban for you on all Wikipedias. Fascists are not welcome here. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 15:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You want to scare me? As Ratko Mladić or Slobodan Milošević did? Go on!! Feal free!!! I would be gled!!!! And it is pathetic. I got all information that I needed. Your administrators in Sebian Wikipedia dont respect ICTY as Milosevic do, they are calling it, political etc. Serbian intellectuals including linguists say that ICTY is irrelevant, so how is their opinion relevant at all if they are ridiculing international institutions?! And Wikimedia will decide, not you, if I send all insults, denyings of Genocide in Srebrenica and simmilar vandalism!!! You are the one who insults, and you will be the one who will get permanet ban. Many Serbian/Serb intellectuals (including linguists) are nationalists, do you want me to quote them? And finaly read what fascism is: A bunch of Muslim males a.k.a. future terrorists, were killed in Yugoslavia in order to prevent further Muslim atrocities such as the World Trade Center attacks. Unfortunately this was the only large-scale massacre of Muslims commited before the United States stuck its nose in and helped defeat Serbia, thus permitting the further development of Muslim extremismwhich ultimately led to multiple terrorist attacks against the United States.Ironic, yes? ---Emir Arven 18:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * And to answer to your saying:"If you don't realize what is the difference between Serbian nationalists and Serbian linguists -- you have a real problem with xenophobia." I dont care what is the difference between Serbian linguists/nationalists/or war criminals. I just dont see the importance to put their opinions abot the language that is not their mother tongue language, and I dont see the importance to put their "prescribed" name for the language that they dont speak and that I speak. Emir Arven 18:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You only suppose that I am a Serb and I am not. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 17:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The fact is that you are administrator in Serbian Wikipedia and your mother tongue language is Serbian, your name is a Serb name, and you can call yourself a Man of the Earth, if you feel so, but that doesnt change your insults, and is not rellevant for above discussion.Emir Arven 18:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is relevant for the discussion because this is one more personal attack from your side: You told that I have bad intentions against this article because I am a Serb and you don't know who I am. This is fascism. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 15:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You showed your intentions when you came and deleted a whole paragraph, as vandals do. Everyone can see the date of you change.Emir Arven 18:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You are saying that all Serb linguists are irrelevant (including me, because you think that I am a Serb) to talk about Bosnian language because of the position of one group of linguists. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 17:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Read above comments few more times, I have already explained.Emir Arven 18:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

This means that I should not (must not) write anything about Bosnian language here. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 17:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * And who says that? If I said, you are free to quote me? Go on! I am waiting...Emir Arven 17:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * First, should not != must not (make up your mind), Second I didnt mean that. You came on the article, and your first step was to remove a whole paragraph without explaining. I have already explained that I was talking about Serb opinions about Bosnian language in the article, not about Serb edits on the article. Serbs are not experts for Bosnian language, in the past they were denying existence of Bosnian language, Bosniaks (calling them Turks, "deuce of Asia" etc), now they "prescribed" different name for Bosnian language.Emir Arven 18:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The whole paragraph which has clear nationalist intentions. But, not only them: you are giving a lot of attention to Croatian and Serbian nationalists with the second sentence. Also, that paragraph should be changed, still. "Post-war" should be defined in the time. But, your intention is to present that all Serbs and all Croats are against Bosniaks. And this is fascism, too. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 15:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * And what about first part of so called "controversy" section. What intention is that? For Bosniaks it is nationalistic intention that we had been seeing in the past 15 years, including burning mosques in Belgrade in 2004. Very xenophobic.Emir Arven 17:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The second personal attack on the page was also yours: "The second of all is that Millosh's intention as a Serb, is to destroy this article as many Serbs before him tried.Emir Arven 20:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)". You are saying again that I am a Serb and that I am trying to destroy this article (which is not truth) "because Millosh is a Serb". This is not only fascism, but this is also a personal attack according to my hypotetic nationality. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 17:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As I said your first step was removing a whole paragraph and the rest of your comment is silly .Emir Arven 18:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

And, again, at this page, you wrote the same personal attack against my hypotetical nationality: You think that I am a Serb and you are saying that only because you think that I am a Serb I should not write inside of that article (i.e. Bosnian language). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 17:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not saying that. Quote me or read my comments more carefully! Emir Arven 18:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, you don't want to read what did I write (long time ago): I am not against your language name. One of the basic human rights of anyone is to call her/his language as (s)he wants. (This means that I am pro for naming your nation language as "Bosanski" in Serbian.) But, you are not a person who is relevant to make such decision (as well as I am not). As well as Bosnian and Serbian are two different languages and if Bosniaks decide, they can call Serbian as Jupiterian in their own language. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 17:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * My language is already standardized by IS0-639 as Bosnian (Bosanski), and political actions that come from Serbia are just their shame. And GeneralPaton, I am sorry that I used your talk page for this silly discussion.Emir Arven 18:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, Bosnian in English, bosanski (with small letter at the beginning!) in Bosnian and bosnjacki in Croatian and Serbian standars. Or you are trying to say that you are working on standardization of Croatian and Serbian languages? (And, again, I told that I am against it.) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 15:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That is the whole point of the story! How is it importan to put this in the article? That was my only question! Maybe we should put in Chinese, Japanese or in for instance some other Slavic languages. There are already interwiki links to other wikipedias, and anyone can see what is the transcription of Bosnian language in other languages.Emir Arven 17:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Serb vandalism again
Hi, general. I just have to say that I cannot understand Serb nationalists, who devoted their life to spread lies, and propaganda. It is very slow process to go to "Request for arbitration" and there is another nationalist that should be warn to behave, Nikola Smolenski, who keeps deleting some parts of the article Republika Srpska, like this:

''On October 4, 2005, the Special Serb Government Working Group of Republika Srpska reported that 25,083 people were involved in the massacre including 19,473 members of various Bosnian Serb armed forces that actively gave orders or directly took part in the massacre. They have identified 17,074 by name.''

Also he keeps renaming Bosnian language into Bosniak language, which is incorrect information, because there is just Bosnian language in ISO-639 standard, and in English. (This is a special Serb policy toward Bosnian language, some kind of denying Bosnian language spreading incorrect information.) Well, I didn't have other options since that nationalist is really, really aggressive and keeps reverting or deleting some parts from the article.Emir Arven 18:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Images for Deletion
Hi. Regarding images you have uploaded: Image:1010 1 800x500-CX1.jpg, Image:2010 3 small 800x500.jpg, Image:1101 small 800x500.jpg and Image:001 small 800x500.jpg.

I have nominated them for deletion, as they lack a source, are not used on any articles and are non-commercial only. Regards, // Fred-Chess 23:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Republika Srpska
General, if you have time could you please intervene at Republika Srpska article. There is some serious edit war taking place along with quite rediculous commentaries by certain individuals thriving on nationalism, vandalism and personal attacks. Thanks--Dado 22:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I see that Dado contacted you, but I just want to warn you that he is the one who spreading nationalism. I explained this on the Republika Srpska talk page. Please read that if you want to deal with this issue. PANONIAN 01:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Halibutt
Since you have supported me during my RfA, I wonder if you could review and comment on the RfA for Halibutt, the first person I have nominated myself. There seem to be a heated debate and votes of experienced, unbiased editors would be appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works. As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Jodl 01.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jodl 01.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use or fairuse. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by going to "Your contributions" from your user page and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Agnte 09:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you please add an appropriate tag on Image:Trajan 01.jpg? If you took the photo yourself, great, just add GFDL-self; if not, could you indicate where it comes from? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Erich von Manstein
Hi there! Don't know if you're still active, but as you are the main author of that article, I thought I'd notify you that I've put it up as a removal candidate from our "featured" articles. See Talk:Erich von Manstein and Featured article removal candidates/Erich von Manstein for the reasons. All the best, Lupo 08:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! Don't know if you're still active. I deleted the bullshit about von Mansteins Jewish heritage. Why? Just have a look at Talk:Erich von Manstein. Great article anyways. Best regards --AuthorDionysos 14:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Iron Cross images
Hi there, you recently uploaded Image:EK 1class.png and Image:EK 2class.png. Could you provide the source and licence or the images will have to be deleted. Pilatus 19:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

A user in despair
I am in desperate need of assistants. and a cohort of new users and anonymous Ips have for seven days inserted un-sourced and unverifiable information on the Flemming Rose page. I have in seven days asked (read the talk page) to source their insertions. None of them does (I believe most of them are Catstail anyway). Could I ask a helping hand, maybe lock this page for anonymous Ip and new user edit? At least give a 3rd party opinion? Twthmoses 17:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC) These are the users in case you are intreasted;

Eh, nijesi li vidio da su ti slika sa tvoje stranice izbrisane? :D --HolyRomanEmperor 20:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Capitalpunishment.png
I didn't look thoroughly and uploaded the image without noticing it already existed in the English wikipedia under a different name. Could you please delete it? Thanks. Ben T/C 14:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Guderian_1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Guderian_1.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as db-unksource.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 05:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back
It's good to see you editing again. Raul654 23:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)`

Khazar Correspondence
The reference to the Croats comes from the text of the Correspondence itself (the text in the article is not complete). Now that it's been brought to my attention I plan to update the article with a more authoritative and complete translation. The full text of the Correspondence and a discussion of the Croat reference can be found in Pritsak and Golb's Khazarian Hebrew Documents of the Tenth Century, which I've added to the references. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Fritz_Bayerlein.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Fritz_Bayerlein.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 09:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Joachimpeiperportrait.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Joachimpeiperportrait.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Image legality questions. 13:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Situation of administrator abuse
Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.

The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.

I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here  Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights 06:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Autobahn_1_color.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Autobahn_1_color.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 09:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Operation Bagration Map
Hello, I noticed that you uploaded a map of the Operation Bagration that you got from a US site. May you please share the URL of it and whether they were other maps available there? Thank you in advance! :) Grafikm_fr 21:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I also noticed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BagrationMap2.jpg and am interested in the source. Amcfreely 05:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Rommel portrait.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Rommel portrait.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images 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. --Durin 12:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

203.87.151.227
I see you placed a warning on User_talk:203.87.151.227. The user has vandalized the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo page. The problem's already been fixed though, but you did mention on the talk page of that IP address that you had already issued a final warning. --Edward Sandstig 07:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:12SSHJWittBDAY.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:12SSHJWittBDAY.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may 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. Nv8200p talk 16:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Ss_pzg.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ss_pzg.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 09:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:U-boat_1_HitlerHortyPuttk.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:U-boat_1_HitlerHortyPuttk.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 10:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Where are you?
You haven't been active for a long time. Also, the pics from your user page have been deleted.... for ages by now. --PaxEquilibrium 11:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Antonius Pius 01.jpg
Hi! This picture is stored on Commons and lacks some source information. Its page states that you were the original uploader on en: Could you please clarify authorship and source? Thanks in advance, Jastrow 11:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Fsj_ardennes_01.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Fsj_ardennes_01.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 10:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:RK_EK.png
Thanks for uploading Image:RK_EK.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 12:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:WaffSSPeiper_3-2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:WaffSSPeiper_3-2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 14:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Rommel France 1940.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Rommel France 1940.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. This is an automated message from BJBot 06:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Skorzeny.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Skorzeny.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 13:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Dietrich_2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Dietrich_2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Keitel_01.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Keitel_01.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 09:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Images listed for deletion
Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Images and media for deletion if you are interested in preserving them. Thank you. Dee Mac Con Uladh 11:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Four of your most recent image uploads are now listed @ Images and media for deletion/2007 March 27. If you are thinking about vandalising the notices from the image pages think twice. Have a nice day.

Image tagging for Image:Raeder_color1.jpeg
Thanks for uploading Image:Raeder_color1.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 11:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Speer_portrait.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Speer_portrait.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 11:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Von_Manstein_01.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Von_Manstein_01.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 11:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Guderian Wenck color 002.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Guderian Wenck color 002.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, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Garion96 (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Raeder_2_1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Raeder_2_1.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, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Hoth color 10.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Hoth color 10.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, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Renata 03:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Me262_bw_01.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Me262_bw_01.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


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

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Yonatan talk 07:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Me_262a_color2.jpg
I have tagged Image:Me_262a_color2.jpg as replaceable fair use. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. Yonatan talk 07:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:GaleazzoCiano01.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:GaleazzoCiano01.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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 10:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Mobius.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mobius.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. 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 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 00:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Rommel cadet.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Rommel cadet.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, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 14:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:0200146.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:0200146.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, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Liftarn 11:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales' birthday
On the Talk page for the Jimmy Wales article it has been suggested you fabricated a quote by Jimmy Wales in regards to his DOB. The edit history for the quote can be found here. I was wondering if you would consider adding a comment to the Talk page to clarify the issue. 68.117.211.187 03:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Von manstein hitler 056.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Von manstein hitler 056.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Von Kuchler color01.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Von Kuchler color01.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Manteuffel color.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Manteuffel color.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:SkorzenyBW.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SkorzenyBW.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:SkorzenyBW.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:SkorzenyBW.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 (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured article review notification: Saturn V
Saturn V has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bundeswehr logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Bundeswehr logo.gif. 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) 04:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Battle of the Bulge FAR opened
Hey, you apparently have 174 edits in the Battle of the Bulge article, which has just been placed through a featured article review. Your input, if any, would be quite welcomed! Thank you. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:VonManstein1956.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:VonManstein1956.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Colchicum (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC) --Colchicum (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hitler vonManstein Zaporozh'ye01.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Hitler vonManstein Zaporozh'ye01.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) 05:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Craf51.jpg
File:Craf51.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:CRAF.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) 04:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Goering vivisection.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Goering vivisection.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Chaffee-AR.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Chaffee-AR.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 19:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Dietrich in color 01.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Dietrich in color 01.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk  03:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Irving trial02.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Irving trial02.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Kelly hi! 04:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)