User talk:Happyman22/archive1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- RHaworth 18:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

templates
Template:List is a perfectly valid template but its name is ridiculous. Will you please:
 * move it to a name like template:Patriarchate of Serbia
 * change all articles which use it
 * mark it for deletion with &#123;{db|now moved to ... }}

I have already done the same for you with Template:TheNameOfYourTemplate but template:list is too widely used.

Also, the images you have uploaded need source and copyright tags or they are liable to be deleted. -- RHaworth 18:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Поздрав и од мене! :) Nikola 11:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Serbs portal
Hi mate - just had a look at your new portal - looks very smart. I would say immediately, however, that it would be much appreciated if you moved the Portal to Portal:Serbia rather than Portal:Serbs. Firstly, it fits into our Portal subject areas more easily, but also because lots of the boxes in your article refer to Serbia and not Serbs.

If you would like to discuss this further, just leave me a message. But if not - all the best getting it set up fully and we look forward to seeing it on the namespace once it is complete!

All the best, Deano 16:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Nice to see this new Portal. If you want any help, just contact me and I will do anything what can. You can visit Serbian Wikipedia where you can ask for help. Best regards. --M. Pokrajac 19:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that you should reduce Church themes. You can put some art or sport article for featured article... --M. Pokrajac 20:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I also welcome you to Wikipedia and am astounded by your portal! :)


 * I don't think that the portal should be moved. Portal Serbia and Montenegro can be made independently of it. Nikola 10:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Веома лепо осмишљено, свака част. Уколико ти је потребна било каква помоћ слободно ми се обрати. -- Sasa  Stefa  novic  &bull; 00:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Name Portal:Serbs is the optimal name... it shouldn't be changed. If you need help, call me, and I'll do all I can :) -- Obradovi&#263; Goran ( t  al  k  15:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not copy and paste from copyrighted web sites
As you may or may not know, we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text borrowed from either web sites or printed material. I recently discovered that you did in fact copy material from http://www.chicagobears.com/history, first posting it on Chicago Bears, and then creating the page "Chicago Bears History".

For more information about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, take a look at our Five Pillars. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Image tagging
When you upload an image to Wikipedia, you should tag it, as explained at WP:ICT, or it might be deleted. See f.e. how I did it with your image. Nikola 11:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Chicago Bears
There is a big difference between writing original material and citing sources, and using material cut-and-pasted from other websites (including this one). After checking, I see that you have corrected yourself, so I'm not going to revert anymore. Sometimes, I admit that I pull the trigger too fast, as there are others around who don't listen and learn. ErikNY 19:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Image tagging: Image:Bearsorange.jpg
As Nikola wrote above, please remember to tag the images that you upload, like Image:Bearsorange.jpg, as per Image copyright tags so we know its copyright status. Otherwise, any untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on the criteria for speedy deletion.

Also, in some cases, an image is copyrighted but allowed on Wikipedia because of fair use. To see a) if this image qualifies, and b) if so, how to tag it, see Fair use.

If you have uploaded other images without including copyright tags, please go back and tag them. Also, please tag all images that you upload in the future. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Web-screenshot tag
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. I've noticed you've uploaded Image:Chicago92.gif, tagged with web-screenshot. This tag is not meant to be used for images that came from Web pages; it's meant to be used for images of Web pages (such as Image:Google screenshot.png, for example). I've retagged this image with the Non-free fair use in tag. If you have any questions, please feel free to post a message on my talk page. —Bkell 00:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Chicago Bears
As per Citing sources, Wikipedia articles should not use other Wikipedia articles as sources. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Halas 050331.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Halas 050331.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 believe the image qualifies as fair use, 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 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. Thank you. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:1946Bears.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1946Bears.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 believe the image qualifies as fair use, 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 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. Thank you. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please check the spelling of the web page again, http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nfl/chi/bears.html is currently a dead link. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

NFL Championship page
I couldn't get into it, to change it, but the table of pro football champions has a mistake. The AAFC and AFL headings are reversed and should be corrected. Best regards. Joenad (Talk)

Image copyright problem with Image:Pr99-1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Pr99-1.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Carnildo or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you.

Image Tagging Image:Ceca 03.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ceca 03.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media 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 media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, 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 have uploaded other media, 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. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 18:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Slava2005_6.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Slava2005_6.jpg. 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 User talk:Carnildo/images. 14:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Ohrid.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ohrid.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. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 22:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Serbia_logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Serbia_logo.gif. 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 Image legality questions. 13:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Slava2005 6.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Slava2005 6.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 01:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Serbia
Hi, just to inform you that we open this WikiProject. &mdash;  Sasa  Stefa novic &bull; 02:28 13-04-2006

Template:BearsCoach
Please do not blank a template that is used on multiple pages (you can determine this by checking the template's "What links here" and counting the number of items maked with "inclusion"). Either merge it to another template or post it on templates for deletion. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As per Wikipedia's policy on fair use images (Rule #9), please do not put the Bears logo, or any other copyrighted logos, directly on a template. Thanks.

Chicago Bears
I'll be honest with you &mdash; I think the Bears article is featured article worthy. However, I think the major issue at hand is that FA voters look for merged sections. If you merge and compress the ownership section with the history to provide a sense of chronological order, you'll probably be in good shape. You may also want to merge the logo and uniform sections and turn that into chronological order. The prose is generally fine, you probably won't get beat over the head for criterion 2a. I can give you a hand if you want, but speaking of the New England Patriots article, it's in terrible condition. I've been trying to bring it back up to a respectable status again. &mdash; Deckill e r 03:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say the best thing to do would be to merge the stadium/ownership information into the history sections. Then again, the Bears' have been around nearly twice as long as the Pats, with many more peaks, valeys, and key changes. I do like the bonus info on the cheerleaders and popular culture, which should really help the article meet the comprehensiveness standard. Nevertheless, I highly recommend merging the business/stadium highlights into the history to keep it succinct and chronological. &mdash; Deckill e r 22:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Virginia mccaskey.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Virginia mccaskey.gif. The image description 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.

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 fair use images 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 21:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Section merging
It's your push, so if you wish to model it like that, feel free to go ahead. If you start to get a lot of objections to its format, however, it will be a good idea to start to tailor the article to the reviewers' suggestions. &mdash; Deckill e r 02:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Featured article criteria are often bended to a user's preferences (read: length of plot sections in video game FAs), which often changes as the time goes on. Thus, what is community consensus now may not have been community consensus in a past time. Granted, this is absolutely no reason to remove or review past FAs; it's just a typical wikibug. &mdash; Deckill e r 02:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

RE:I disagree to your assumption with the Bears article
I responded to your comments left on my talk page also posted on the Bear's FAC here. Wikipedia's  False Prophet   holla at me   petition 03:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe I have raised other issues as well as the merging of those sections. Wikipedia's  False Prophet   holla at me   petition 04:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Honeybears.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Honeybears.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jaranda wat's sup 23:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Honeybears.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Honeybears.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.

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 fair use images 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. —Bkell (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for adding more information to the image description page. However, the image is still lacking a rationale explaining why its use on Wikipedia should be considered fair use. If you need help or have any questions, please let me know. —Bkell (talk) 04:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What is the proper rationale I should give to an image that tells it is fair use. Everything I have read about it seems confusing? --Happyman22 15:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There are four factors which must be considered for a fair-use claim under United States copyright law:
 * the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
 * the nature of the copyrighted work;
 * the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
 * the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
 * Basically, you need to establish the following claims:
 * The use must not attempt to "supersede the objects" of the original but rather be educational or critical.
 * The less of the original that is used in relation to the whole the more likely that use is fair, though the importance of the specific portion is also considered (as quoting the most important part may attempt to "supersede" the original).
 * The use must not infringe on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work (for instance, by acting as a direct market substitute for the original work), though not through criticism or parody.
 * Additionally, you must make sure that the image satisfies all ten requirements of the Wikipedia fair use policy. Go through these requirements one by one. Give an explanation for any of them that you think need justification. In particular, you will need to explain why no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information (the first requirement), and why the image contributes significantly to the article and does not serve a purely decorative purpose (the eighth requirement).
 * I personally think that a fair-use claim for this image is shaky, because the photograph was apparently taken to be used as art for a Kodak box, and we are not using the image to comment on this box art. (One of the fair use counterexamples is "an image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover." This seems to be similar: an image of the packaging of a commercial product, used only to illustrate the article on the persons whose photograph is on the box.) In addition, this image has a very large and distracting watermark that says "www.BearsHistory.com", which lessens the suitability of the image for Wikipedia. You will need to write your fair-use rationale in such a way that it will convince skeptics like me that the use of this image on Wikipedia falls under fair use and is not simply a copyright violation. Let me know if you need help or have any more questions. —Bkell (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy
Hi there! I've noticed that you've edited articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wanted to extend an invitation to you to join the WikiProject dedicated to organizing and improving articles on the subject, which can be found at: WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This WikiProject was begun because a need was perceived to raise the level of quality of articles on Wikipedia which deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

You can find information on the project page about the WikiProject, as well as how to join and how to indicate that you are a member of the project. Additionally, you may be interested in helping out with our collaboration of the month. I hope you'll consider joining and thank you for your contributions thus far! &mdash; A.S. Damick talk contribs 18:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Chicago Bears
Hey there; I have a lot of stuff on queue right now, so I'm not sure if I can help out immediately. I will definitely try to get around to helping out again ASAP. &mdash; Deckill e r 02:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Serb-ch.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Serb-ch.gif. 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. Jkelly 00:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Serbs
Just to let you know that a portal you created has been listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Serbs. You may wish to comment. Cheers, Yomangani talk 00:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Chicago Bears template
I don't know about you but I think having the seasons template and team template together is better becuase it keeps articles from having 2 templates instead of just 1. -- Coasttocoast 03:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Done --Coasttocoast 00:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Serb-ch.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Serb-ch.gif. 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. —Angr 18:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Chicago Bear Stubs
Lists like that one don't really belong in the main article space. However, you're welcome to create a subpage of your own with a title like User:Happyman22/Workspace to use as a...well, a workspace. Joyous! | Talk 03:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

wikiproject
As a member of WikiProject Serbia, you should be aware that the project as well as Portal:Serbia is being considered for deletion. If you have the time, please comment on what you feel should be done with the project and the portal. Thank you. // Laughing Man 01:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

BearsStub
Hi - it has come to our notice that you have recently created a new stub type. As it clearly states at WP:STUB, at the top of most stub categories, on the template page for new Wikiprojects and in many other places on Wikipedia, new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies, and whether better use could be made of a WikiProject-specific talk page template.

In the case of your new stub type, it is not named according to stub naming guidelines, it does not reach the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, it is not correctly formed, and is of a type which would be unlikely to gain any support for a stub split (sportspeople change teams regularly, so this would result in a lot of unnecessary multiple-stubbing). Your new stub type has been proposed for deletion at WP:SFD. And please, in future, propose new stub types first! Grutness...wha?  02:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

/* Participants */ Chicago Bears
Participant in User:Happyman22/Bears work portal--knowpedia 16:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Bears seasons stubs
Thanks for all your contributions of articles on individual seasons played by the Chicago Bears. I was wondering if I could ask you to avoid using the template where a more specific template is available. Might I suggest ? The template doesn't place the article on a specific list of football articles. Because of that, the people best able to improve the stubs you are creating are highly unlikely to ever see the articles or improve them. Also, common practice is to put one stub template at the bottom of the article, rather than one in each section. Please understand, I'm suggesting these changes to save me & others from having to edit each article to add a more specific stub tag or make other changes. If the article is put in the best category to start with, it will help the project. What do you think? --Ssbohio 03:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

AFL-NFL Championships
I would like to see confirmation that "the NFL record book" doesn't count league championships for AFL or NFL champions who won the Super Bowl. Comparing this to baseball, did the St. Louis Cardinals win the American Baseball League Championship last year, or doesn't it count, because they won the World Series?

The page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_NFL_Championships gives a column for NFL championships and a column for AFL championships. Did the Jets win zero AFL championships? The Texans/Chiefs won three AFL championships; in 1962, 1966 AND 1969, and a World Championship in 1969. There were ten AFL championship games. Add up the column on that page, and you only get eight. Similarly, the sum of the NFL championships is incorrect. Listing all the league championships is less confusing than NOT listing them, and is historically correct, which your table is not.

I suggest you simply properly record the AFL and NFL championships, then change footnote [1} to read: "From the 1933 through the 1969 season, the NFL played a league championship game. Its champions are recorded above.  From the 1960 through the 1969 season, the AFL played a league championship game.  Its champions are also recorded above.  From 1966 through 1969, the champions of each league played each other, as in Baseball, and the winner was the World Champion.  Since 1970, there has only been one major pro football league, so the Super Bowl winner is the NFL champion." Any comments, please e-mail me at RemembertheAFL@aol.com SugnuSicilianu

More AFL-NFL Championships
Thanks. The table now reflects actual fact. SugnuSicilianu

Orphaned fair use image (Image:CHI 354.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:CHI 354.gif. 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 02:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for edit
Thanks for the edit to reformat my addition to the Bears page - it looks much better - the spacing issue did not show up the the preview. You might want to check out the article about my father Hap Moran - funny, his number was 22 also Revmoran 13:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence Taylor
I noticed you are a member of the Wikiproject National Football League, I'd like to ask a favor of you. I've done a lot of work recently to improve the Lawrence Taylor article and recently made a request to have it peer reviewed. Would you mind looking it over and giving me advice on what to do next? The peer review page is here. Thanks in advance. Quadzilla99 13:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

St. Louis Rams seasons
I added the seasons, league awards and team awards. Don't know if team awards could be there, but I thought I would give it a try. Thanks for all your help. --Pinkkeith 01:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Montenegrins
Wow man, don't go that far. That might be POV. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 14:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Interest?
Why do you all of a sudden have interest in Serbs?

I'm just asking out of curiosity... --PaxEquilibrium 15:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm just askin'. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 21:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Bears team template
Please explain yourself. All of that "stuff" has become standard - just implementing it is our current task now. The coaches link brings you to the main article's coaches of note section, which goes nicely with the "players" link on the templates - which usually links to the main page, except when there's a separate player page, like you have with the Bears. But the head coaches section is already part of the BearsCoach template, so please, tell me what I added. Because I all I added were the Quarterbacks and Coaches links - the Quarterbacks page is one of the core pages of the Bears project, so please tell me why it doesn't belong on this template. Besides that, nothing else changed, aside from a few minor aesthetics. Pats1 01:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Technically, by your logic, the franchise link shouldn't be there too, because it leads to everything else on the template. Do you see my point? You have to draw the line somewhere between keeping things two/three levels deep. The Quarterbacks article is separate and considered to be on the level of a players, history, logos/uniforms, or seasons article of teams. As far as the Decatur Staleys goes, it would be inappropriate to just label the template the Chicago Bears. Not everything on the template (most notably the history and players articles) falls under the heading "Chicago Bears." Having Boston/New England Patriots or Decatur Staleys/Chicago Bears makes the template more all-encompassing and appropriate to its material. As far as some of the links on there, how does making it bold signify to the reader that that's the current stadium? They're in chronological order - there's no need to add superfluous bold text. Brian's Song and The Super Bowl Shuffle are both titles of articles - on the same exact level as Chicago Bears or George Halas (not material-wise, of course, but rather in the fact that they're all articles, and the former are no less articles than the latter). The appropriate quotes or italicized text will be contained within the interior titles of the articles and don't have to be duplicated whenever that article is linked. As far as NFL championship appearances go, those can really start to pile up, especially with a storied franchise like the Bears. Instead of adding a teams' AAFC or AFL or pre-merger NFL championship appearances, the most concise method seems to be just Super Bowl appearances - what links every modern NFL team together. Training camp starts for the Pats in 33 days. Can't wait. :D Pats1 01:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course there's going to be some cases like the Packers or Cardinals where the team had a bunch of different names. No system is going to be perfect. But an "other team names" section is just a rehash of the main article and mostly wasted space - having the main team names as a header is a good compromise. Sounds good with the QB page - make sure to de-link the main Bears article then, too. Again, with the NFL/AFL/AAFC championship appearances, we could go back to some 1919 match with the Providence Steam Roller or whatever. The NFL championships won are still on the template, in the league championships section. Only some teams have NFL championship game appearances, while some have AFL CG appearances, while still others have AAFC ones. However, almost every NFL team now has a Super Bowl appearance. It's something that can be standard throughout all team templates. I know you are proud about the Bears' pre-merger history, but introducing elements of it would open the door to introducing elements from every little league every team was a part of prior to the modern NFL. The Super Bowl is the championship game of the modern NFL. Honestly, whatever is done on the Arsenal page is not of my concern. The only common link is that they're part of English Wikipedia and they're a sports team. That's it. They're not American, they're not about American football, and most importantly, they're not a part of WP:NFL. Whatever their "football" project decides to do is independent of what WP:NFL decides to do. Pats1 02:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Please participate
In a discussion on the depth we should have concerning team articles and help form a consensus the discussion is taking place on the Talk:San Diego Chargers page under the " Epic in Miami -Freezer Bowl " heading. RMANCIL 15:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo: country debate
Hello. There's a discussion going on Talk:List of countries as to whether or not Kosovo should be included in that list. You have an interest in Serbia-related articles and I thought you might be interested. The articles List of countries and Annex to the list of countries (where the inclusion criteria reside) are both relevant. Cheers. DSuser 13:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. It's probably a minor point, but there a discussion and vote going on at Talk:Kosovo as to whether or not it's better to use Kosovo rather than Kosovan or Kosovar in the Wikipedia articles. Perhaps you have no interest, in which case sorry to bother you! DSuser 15:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Serbia logo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Serbia logo.gif. 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 05:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Serbia logo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Serbia logo.gif. 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 07:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

FL Main page proposal
You either nominated a WP:FLC or closed such a nomination this year. As such, you are the type of editor whose opinion I am soliciting. We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September). When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month. I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page. Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 1 2007, voting starting December 1 2007 and main page appearances starting January 1 2008. For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual main page will resemble either an excerpted list format or an abbreviated text format. The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries. However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge. Right now debate seems to be among support for the current selective democratic/consensus based proposal, a selective dictatorial approach like that used at WP:TFA or a non-selective first in line/calendar approach like that used at WP:POTD. See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CHI 362.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:CHI 362.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 23:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CHI 363.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:CHI 363.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 23:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured List of the Day Experiment
There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dallas Cowboys seasons
An article that you have been involved in editing, Dallas Cowboys seasons, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. Truthanado (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This article has been redirected to Dallas Cowboys where similar information already exists. Please feel free to update the information in that article so that Wiki users don't have to look in two places to find the information. Truthanado (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:NFL team demo
A you created, Template:NFL team demo,  been marked for deletion as  deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the  tag from the template. If you feel the deletion appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. Bryan Derksen (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Constantinople seal.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Constantinople seal.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) 05:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CHI 354.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:CHI 354.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) 06:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit Summaries
Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:  The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field - please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you.

Current FLC
San Diego Chargers seasons. Do you think you could give some feedback. Buc (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Bearstitles
A tag has been placed on Template:Bearstitles requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:200px-PatrijarhDimitrijePavlovic.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:200px-PatrijarhDimitrijePavlovic.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 04:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Undeath (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Serb portal/Serb Music
A template you created, Template:Serb portal/Serb Music, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the   tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. Bryan Derksen (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Chicago Bears timeline
A tag has been placed on Template:Chicago Bears timeline requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Varnava Rosic.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Varnava Rosic.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC) --Ricky81682 (talk) 05:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, I see that you have a number of images you uploaded copied from the Serbian wikipedia. Instead of trying to do this cross-wiki copying, I think you should upload them to Commons and then let everyone have access to them.  Some of those images would probably be useful in other wikipedias as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

question about chicago bears template
Hi, Happyman22. I see that you converted Chicago Bears to the Navbox format back in January. Did you get any feedback from other editors after making this change away from the football box format that is less vertical space friendly? I would appreciate any thoughts you have to before I go and change one myself to the Navbox format. -- Gwguffey (talk) 05:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOTD/WP:LOTM
Congratulations Chicago Bears Seasons has been selected as a July WP:LOTD. It will appear in the WP:LOTD template for one day as an LOTD. If you have any preference on a days during July let me know before June 24th. If you have any other lists that you feel should be nominated next month please ad them at User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/Nominees/200808.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO
According to my records, you have nominated at least one article (Chicago Bears & Chicago Bears Seasons) that includes a category at WP:CHIBOTCATS and that has been promoted to WP:FA, WP:FL or WP:GA. You are not signed up as an active member of WP:CHICAGO and I see that the Chicago Bears project you were a part of seems to be inactive. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the Chicago project please sign up as such at WikiProject Chicago/members. Also, if you are a member, be aware of Meetup/Chicago 3 and be advised that the project is now trying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

FLRC
Chicago Bears seasons is a Featured list removal candidate. BUC (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw your comment on the FLRC discussion page. It will likely be delisted if you try those arguments.  Standards get tighter over time.  You have to clean up the article to retain the honor.  Please give it a shot if you have the time.  You will notice your article improve.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Chicago Bears seasons
Hi, just thought I'd let you know that according to the cleanup listing, the article currently has an unsourced statement. Because the page is a Featured List, it would be great if it could be resolved quickly. Thanks, Scorpion0422 15:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about NFL season list names
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Bears retired numbers
Hey, would you mind making a .png with the number 71 in Jaguars colors (teal, black, white, gold... maybe white bkgd, black number, gold trim?)? I'm trying to set up a page for the Jaguars retired numbers but I don't have any way of designing graphics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.0.80.60 (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Patrijarh german.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Patrijarh german.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

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, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may 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. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Vikentije Prodanov.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Vikentije Prodanov.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

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, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may 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. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Patrijarh Gavrilo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Patrijarh Gavrilo.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

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, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may 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. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:St-mark.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:St-mark.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

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, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may 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. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Bears FAR
nominated Chicago Bears for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 20:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer rights
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Pr99-1.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Pr99-1.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

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 File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may 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. Kelly hi! 04:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)