User talk:Iron Chef

Uh huh

Hey!
Hey, How's it hangin'? -- Mr.crabby   (Talk)   23:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Forman Pose3.JPG
You actually took that picture yourself? It didn't appear in a newspaper or other news source? — M ETS 501 (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for deleting that duplicate copy, I didn't mean to do that.


 * Per your inquiry about the picture, friend of mine met him at the Miami Airport and took a picture with him. I edited it to cut him out. Thanks --Iron Chef 23:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow! What a great shot! — M ETS 501 (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded
Thanks for uploading Image:Forman Pose3.JPG. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Forman Pose.JPG. The copy called Image:Forman Pose.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 04:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And I just deleted it. — M ETS 501 (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: East of Eden
High-five! - Vianello (Talk) 01:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:VmkIrwin2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:VmkIrwin2.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.  MBisanz  talk 04:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:VmkIrwin.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:VmkIrwin.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.  MBisanz  talk 04:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your edits on the Recovery (Eminem Album) article
I'm sorry for not leaving a reason on my edit. I described the album as receiving "generally mixed to positive reviews" because in actuality, the album did receive some positive reviews, but also received enough mixed and negative reviews to constitute that the result was a firm "mixed to positive" reception. Although Metacritic indicates "generally positive reviews" for an album with a rating of 61, the cutoff for albums on the site to receive a description of either "mixed reviews" or "positive reviews" is 60. So had 1 more mixed or negative review been put onto the Metacritic site (and there have been reviews left out of Metacritic's review list for Recovery), there's a good chance the score could have gone down, and the website would have changed the description to mixed. It's a matter of common sense: If there were positive, mixed, and negative reviews from major critical publishers, yet there were slightly more positive reviews than mixed or negative, the album can be described as having "positive" reviews, but it should also be noted that a decent amount of the reviews were not positive, which is indicated by also adding the word "mixed".

Also, I think that it should be noted that 50 Cent's Before I Self Destruct album gained a 62 score from Metacritic, but on the Wikipedia page for the album, the reception section states that the album received "generally mixed to positive reviews". This was actually the reason I felt to change the description of Recovery's reception to that of the Before I Self Destruct's reception, as they both received similar ratings from critics, and 50's album has had that description on its page for months without any complaints or reverts.

Hope this helped! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PittPanthers93 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)