User talk:Jack4740

Orphaned non-free image (Image:28146291 Shieldshrimp.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:28146291 Shieldshrimp.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 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Davies Flag.GIF
Thank you for uploading Image:Davies Flag.GIF. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 21:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Davies Crest.JPG
Thank you for uploading Image:Davies Crest.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 21:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sergana
No thanks. Wikipedia has no place for imaginary states that you have invented as in Sergana. -- RHaworth 07:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Commercial use of Image:Flag.GIF
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Flag.GIF, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Flag.GIF has a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission, which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3). While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license GFDL-self to license it under the GFDL, or cc-by-sa-2.5 to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use PD-self to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Flag.GIF itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Media copyright questions. Thanks. CSDWarnBot 18:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability of NYSRP
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on NYSRP, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because NYSRP seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting NYSRP, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 21:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of United Provinces Of Sergana
An article that you have been involved in editing, United Provinces Of Sergana, 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. CobaltBlueTony 19:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Experimental edits
Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia articles even if your ultimate intention is to fix them. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox.

Image source problem with Image:Ulrika6.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ulrika6.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 23:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Genisock2 23:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

British Union Of England, Wales and N.Ireland
A template has been added to the article British Union Of England, Wales and N.Ireland, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. Russ (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What's the point?
I have just removed your novel division of Swansea into "districts" from the Swansea article. In the past, you have also spent some time trying to give Fforestfach the new name of Voorstad van Fforesfach (your typo), establish Gowerton Comprehensive as a member of the Russell Group, proclaim the motto of Swansea as "practiso makes berffaith", and more. I start to think that the Fforestfach "flag" contributed from an IP address was also your contribution. Your contributions under this account have been along these lines for a month now. Please stop it. It's vandalism, and vandalism can get you blocked. Telsa (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

(Replie Edit by Jack4740) Actually if you took the time to look and read the article I wrote you'd know why Fforestfach was called Voorstad van Fforestfach, do you want to know why?, because there has been a lot of Dutch immigration into the area in the past 50 years or so,and you want to know why i know that? because a lot of my friends grandfathers were dutch and my grandfather was dutch. Voorstad van Fforestfach is'nt it's new name at all,it is it's name translated into dutch that's all and I think it's relevant to make it known that dutch people live here because my friend,there is very little welsh decent that currently lives here now and there is a lot of Dutch speakers.Plus I am not willing to let a page of information about Fforestfach(where I actually live by the way) just be dominated by the fact that Tesco's Extra moved here and that there has been a drop in Swansea City Centre's visits since park Fforestfach was built right?.I don't know if you actually know or anything but there was actually life before Tesco's Extra, so just because your Welsh does'nt give you the right to judge or change an area which you probably don't even live in, or know about.How about one day you come to Fforestfach, ask a few people there middle names and what there Grandfathers were called and they certaintly won't be English or Welsh.


 * There's two points here. First, Wikipedia cannot include stuff just from personal information. Everything on here has to come from good references. So even if you know something for a fact, you have to be able to point to somewhere reputable and authoritative as a reference before it goes into Wikipedia. (Yes, when it comes to things that seem obvious, or that are very recent, this is a pain in the neck.) For more on this, there are two policies: No original research and Verifiability; and one guideline: Reliable sources.


 * Second, I agree with you that the page is dominated by marketing-speak and reads like an advert for brand names. Most of it should be tagged as unreferenced and removed if nothing is found to support it. There is plenty of local history and demographics available online and in libraries which could go in. If you want to improve it, go for it. But it must come from reliable sources, which does not include assorted grandfathers' reminiscences.


 * But none of that explains your other less-than-helpful edits. Have you similar explanations for the city motto, Gowerton school, and so on?


 * Telsa (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Joseph llewelyn Thomas
Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Toddst1 (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack and he is a real famous person in Wales, and I have cited sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack4740 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 19 November 2007


 * Unfortunately, your sources do not support your claims, and it appears that you are attacking a real person. Another user has re-tagged the article as an attack.  Please refrain from re-creating the article without supporting citations as it appears to me and at least one other editor that you are creating an attack page. Toddst1 (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. BencherliteTalk 20:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Gowerton comprehensive 200px.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gowerton comprehensive 200px.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

May 2008
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Bettia  (talk)  09:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

July 2008
Please stop vandalizing pages. Bob98133 (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Vadalizing what pages?, I was currently in the midst of changing some information on the Yeovil Town FC page

Come on Bob, I want an answer.


 * You have not documented that any of these animals are extinct in the wild. They are domesticated. Sorry I called it vandalism when it was good faith editing, just wrong. If you're not happy with my changes, discuss them on the talk page of the articles to see if others agree with your changes.Bob98133 (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see Extinct in the Wild Extinct in the Wild (EW) is a conservation status assigned to species or lower taxa, the only known living members of which are being kept in captivity or as a naturalized population outside its historic range.
 * AND Domestication.


 * They may be the same in your mind, but they have very different meanings. That is why EW is at the far left of the conservation status bar - it means they are close to extinction.


 * Before you aregue about definitions, could you please look them up? Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Bob do you even know what you're talking about?, that line does not refute anything that I've said infact it proves what I'm saying 100%. It just looks like you've gone over to that article and copy and pasted that first opening paragraph without actually knowing what it means.

I know this because I too have revised to what I'm saying and done some research, hence why I spent 4 hours changing everything.

Bob, the only known living members of the Chicken species are domesticated, there are NO wild chickens. The same goes for dogs and cats. This article is written in a way in which it serves species that are extinct in the wild but serve no major purpose to humaity, there is nothing diffrent in a Dog's conservation status than there is to a Hawaiian Crow's, both are extinct in the wild and both are kept in captivity and it's incredibly stupid to seperate the two when there's nothing to seperate them by.

So it's you who should go away and read.


 * So, there are no wild dogs (see canis lupus and dingo) and no wild cats (see Felis silvestris and African wildcat)? What planet do you live on?--Ramdrake (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

For a start ramdrake, they are not the same type of cat or dog as I am talking about, I am talking about the Felis catus and Canis lupus familiaris two types of cat and dog that only live in captivity.

Felis silvestris and canis lupus are not addressed as Cat and Dog, they are addressed as African wildcat and Dingo, not Cat and dog, so stop twisting the discussion.


 * Canis lupus and Canis lupus familiaris are genetically the same species. Same can be said of Felis silvestris and Felis silvestris catus (a.k.a. Felis Catus). If you wish to dispute those, please present reliable, verifiable sources to that effect. And that's not even taking into account the millions of feral cats and dogs worldwide. A domesticated species is by no means mandatorily extinct in the wild (although there are exceptions).--Ramdrake (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if you can't even tell the difference between the European and the African wild cat, you sort of prove my point that you don't know what you're talking about. I would recommend you read a few books on the origins of the dog and cat (especially about their genetics) before you say any more inexact statements.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

When I said that there are NO Cats and Dogs living in the wild, I meant there are no Canis lupus familiaris or Felis silvestris catus, I am not disputing that they are diffrent. So stop using fallacies to win the arguement, IT'S YOU WHO IS IN THE WRONG, because IT WAS YOU WHO MISREAD THE INFORMATION I PRODCUED SO GET IT RIGHT. Why would I dispute about Canis lupus or  Felis silvestris not having conservation charts when on their page they do dumbass.

Also Felis catus and Canis lupus familiaris are diffrent from the wild species because:

1. Both species live in the wild and the other species do not 2. Both have diffrent adaptations to each other

HENCE WHY THEY HAVE THE NAMES:

silvestris and familiaris added on to the end of their names.

I have told Bob this a thousands times, when a species is domesticated it NO LONGER LIVES IN THE WILD, and that is the point that you're missing, yes you can have feral cats, but that's not CLASSED as wild.

Species that are domesticated no longer live in the wild and instead live in captivity.


 * Conservation status is usually at the species level, not the subspecies level. Please provide soruces to your claims that 1)domestic cats and dogs do not exist in the wild (i.e. feral dogs and cats don't exist) and 2)that domestic dogs and cats present adaptations which do not exist at the species level.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, usually at species level, however there are so many diffrences in traits between wild and non wild in dogs and cats etc that sometimes conservation status is taking on sub species, before long wild and non wild will evolve and differ so much that domestic cat and dog will no longer be a sub species and will become a species of it's own.

I never said that wild dog and wild cat  never existed,  what I'm saying is that there is no wild Felis catus or Canis lupus familiaris. Both of them are kept in captivity.

Oh and here are some of the evolutionery traits that differ between wild cat and domestic cat and wild dog and domestic and a few others as well, they can all be found at this site:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/7-Differences-Between-Domestic-Animals-and-Their-Wild-Forebears-74685.shtml
 * First, none of those differences make them different enough to be different species (there are specific criteria which differentiate species). Please provide sources that say conservation status is applied to the subspecies level. Also, please address the existence of feral cats, dogs, horses, cattle, chicken, etc. which all live independently from human intervention. These are by all standard definitions "wild" counterparts to domestic animals. Also, please refrain from presenting your own conclusions as fact, this is called original research, and isn't permitted here.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Did I say that they ever were a diffrent species? no I said that they have diffrent traits that's all so stop using the simple strawman to win this debate, I just said that those domesticated animals DO NOT live in the wild. Maybe it's you who should address the diffrence between "FERAL" and "WILD" and most importantly stop using fallacies to cover your tracks because it doesnt work. You say " presenting you're own conclusions as fact" does that mean reading information and just relaying back to you? LOL. How dumb.....


 * A feral organism is one that has escaped from domestication and returned, partly or wholly, to its wild state. This is the definition of feral. Therefore, at least some feral animals are considered wild, which negates your sweeping statement ("domesticated animals DO NOT live in the wild"). I would advise you to read our policy against personal attacks. If you continue calling people names, you will eventually get blocked. I believe our conversation is finished here.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually our coversation is far from finished, because feral animals are STILL DOMESTICATED animals living in the wild. They have been domesticated animals from birth, just because they have escaped into the wild does'nt mean that they are a WILD ANIMAL. So your little smart sentence negates nothing of what I'm saying so get back here and debate.


 * Most feral animals in feral colonies were born in the wild. That is especially true of dogs, cats and horses.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If they were born in the wild, they would'nt be called feral animals would they?, they would be called WILD animals.


 * Well, say they were, then that proves that the subspecies isn't extinct in the wild (since it reproduces in the wild). You just disproved your own argument. Congratulations!--Ramdrake (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No it does'nt disprove my arguement because most escaped domesticated animals don't even live to get to the stage of breeding because they are so used to being domesticated from birth that they do not have the wild instincts to survive. That's why there are no wild domesticated cats or dogs, otherwise if there was scientists would'nt of bothered adding a sub species! Congratulations! I don't even know what you're talking about when you say "Most feral animals in feral colonies were born in the wild. That is especially true of dogs, cats and horses"?????????


 * Ok, go on all you want, just don't revert any more conservation statuses. The fertility of many feral species offsets the poor survival rate into adulthood of some of them (feral goats, for example, fend very well for themselves and have no problem surviving in the wild in mountainous areas, especially).--Ramdrake (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would'nt post on a website that's manipulated by moderators anyway, which in this case is this website, I'll go on all I want. The problem is that you don't think logically, you just see some sort of rule and go by it regardless, if you did think logically then you'd of realised how stupid it is to call a domestic chicken DOMESTICATED and then go and say that, that very chicken is not extinct in the wild.

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh how lovely the world is not sinebot, that you have presented me that very helpful info! yay! Go do something constructive like find spammers or something.

Image tagging for Image:Forestfachordinancesurvey1860.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Forestfachordinancesurvey1860.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

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

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Notostraca
I saw your edits to this page. The comments you left should really go on the talk page. If you really think a comment should be left, this tells you how. How_to_edit_a_page look 7 rows down for 'Commenting page source:'. Basically use GameKeeper (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for editing the page and correcting the problems, it seems to me as if the person who originally created the Notostraca page created it in the name of Triops Canciforms. Anyway thank you for correcting the problem and directing the link to the T Canciforms page I created a few hours ago. Next time I will use the talk page,

(talk) 20:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it wasn't me who corrected it! Don't want to take credit for other's work. I see no one has given you a welcome message yet. What follows is a standard welcome that helps you with common Wikipedia issues. GameKeeper (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! GameKeeper (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Welsh Italians
Jack, I can find no sources to say that Swansea, Gower or Cardiff were particular centres of the Welsh Italian population (as opposed to Glamorgan or South Wales generally) - if you can find some WP:RS to back these claims, then I won't object to your edits. Remember, we're not supposed to place unpublished facts, speculation or opinion on Wikipedia. Pondle (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok,I'm sorry and I respect your decision. I think I'll have to go and dig out some old books and see what I find.

Jack4740 (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Empire: Total War images
Jack, I've had to remove the images you have uploaded from the article, for two main reasons.
 * 1) You had them tagged as public domain images, asserting that you owned the copyright to those articles. This is unfortunately not possible; while you may have taken the screenshots, you do not own the copyright to them. Creative Assembly does instead, as it depicts their work. Therefore, the images are subject to our non-free image criteria, which links into the second one.
 * 2) The images, at present, cannot be used as they fail the non-free image criteria, which requires each non-free image to have a detailed justificiation for why it must be used. This means that they have to assist with the critical commentary in the article—they can't be used for purely decorative purposes. File:Empire Total War Start up screen.png is a lost hope, it will not qualify as there is no need to display the game's menu at any point. The other two currently fail as we already have two images doing their job, with particular commentary in the captions explaining the significance of these images (note how the caption for the second screenshot in the article discusses the focus on gunpowder weapons, while the image displays a sustained gunfire). While there will be benefit in replacing those two images with full in-game versions rather than promotional material, the images you provided aren't particularly suitable, as they don't really help with critical commentary, plus there's a whacking big "Game Paused" sign in the middle, which is somewhat distracting. They're also not of a low web resolution, which the non-free content criteria specifies.

You might also want to consider more descriptive file names in future, as currently there's nothing to tell anyone from the mere name of the image that they may look at a game screenshot instead of an image of the real thing. For instance, File:Battle of Brandywine image, hessian troops.png would be better off with something like "Empire Total War Battle of Brandywine.png".

The best bet would be to wait for the game to be released before replacing the screenshots currently in the article with fresh ones, if for no other reason than to assure that we are displaying the end product—there is the potential for changes between now and the release date, even if that seems unlikely. -- Sabre (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Korun front.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Korun front.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 GFDL 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 [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], 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 [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

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. Mercy (☎|✍) 21:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Korun Back.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Korun Back.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 GFDL 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 [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], 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 [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

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. Mercy (☎|✍) 21:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Korun Back.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Korun Back.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. --–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Korun front.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Korun front.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. --–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of antigua.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Coat of arms of antigua.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the 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. Lokal_Profil 22:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Guillem Bauza celeb v Billericay 594799.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Guillem Bauza celeb v Billericay 594799.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. -- Skier Dude ( talk ) 07:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

MS Antivirus (malware)‎
I'm not saying your edits were in bad faith, but I reluctantly reverted your edits because:

--HamburgerRadio (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * the references don't seem to support the assertion that the files are the specific rogue software in question WP:V
 * even then bleepingcomputer.com does not seem to meet WP:RS
 * Showing one filename and one registry key so prominently (and with no indication of its significance) out of a large family of malware is probably against WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE
 * the image does not provide any information that cannot be given as text

Thank you, I respect your decision to revert my edits, after sitting back and thinking awhile I realized those weren't my best edits and perhaps that a moderator could change them back at some point.

--Jack4740 (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2009 (BST)

AfD nomination of BloodhoundV2 Trojan Horse
An article that you have been involved in editing, BloodhoundV2 Trojan Horse, 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.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Bwrs (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Coat of arms of antigua.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Coat of arms of antigua.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.


 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.


 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

User Page Vandalism
It looks like your userpage is being'trolled'. I've blanked it so its not a target. Two of the users involved have been blocked, I have issued the other one with an 'only warning' (4im). Would you like me to make a request to get the page semi-protected so that people cant vandalise it any more? If so, post a message on my talk page. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, I filed a request to get your userpage semi protected and this was granted. Regarding changing your username, you can do this here:WP:RENAME. If you need any more help just ask :) Acather96 (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Protection
I've semi-protected your user page indefinitely per your request. Let me know if you want it unprotected. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Per your request, I've deleted your userpage. I'll be happy to restore it any time if you want- I can leave the vandalism deleted or you can create a new one (which I can protect for you again). Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Jack17.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jack17.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the 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.

Images
Hi, File:Nordbull.png, File:Mexam.jpg, and File:Affects of bloodhound trojan horse.PNG are nominated for deletion as copyright violations. Regards Hekerui (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Korun front.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Korun front.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

File:150px-Byzantine navy flag svg.png missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:150px-Byzantine navy flag svg.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Essam Sharaf (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Korun Back.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Korun Back.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Walesitaly.PNG listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Walesitaly.PNG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the 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. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Welsh italians page screenshot.PNG


The file File:Welsh italians page screenshot.PNG has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Orphaned image, no context to determine possible future encyclopedic use."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Bloodhound virus trojan screenshot.PNG


The file File:Bloodhound virus trojan screenshot.PNG has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Orphaned image, no context to determine possible future encyclopedic use."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Combo.PNG


The file File:Combo.PNG has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Orphaned image, no context to determine possible future encyclopedic use."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Italien Immigration Map.GIF


The file File:Italien Immigration Map.GIF has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Orphaned image, no context to determine possible future encyclopedic use."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

"Sims 2 University:Zombies" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sims 2 University:Zombies and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 25 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 00:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)