User talk:Kellen/Archives/2008/May

Ryan Avery
Because of your edits on the Captain Ahab article, I was hoping you would look at this article on Ryan Avery, and lend your comments on the corresponding AfD. Thanks! PT ( s-s-s-s ) 23:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Profanity on the Cyclo-cross bicycle page
thanks k. Will.law 05:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * oops sorry k. Will.law 14:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Google dontchaknow <3. Kellen T 15:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * k. got it. Will.law 06:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Vegan definition
Sorry about that. I should have looked more closely at the editing history. I thought you'd added the terms that do define the vegan diet, but not necessarily the lifestyle. Bob98133 (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: User Page
yeah i forget where i got the inspiration for it. i know it was someone really awesome though. Will.law 15:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

User Boxes
Thanks for fixing 'em dude! I spent a long time yesterday trying to do it myself but it was beyond my level. hotdiggitydogs 17:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Atheism
On the article of Atheism you removed content in Atheism and Intelligence without due reason or cause. According to the survey, higher education are more likely to be Atheists. Besides actually having a reference supporting it, it can be blatantly seen throughout the planet. --William Pembroke 21:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you.  Xiner 22:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed that my edit summary was not particularly helpful; however, the part that I removed was a half copy of another section which was improperly formatted and cited. Kellen T 08:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

CSD
Hi Kellen, just pointing out that just because a redirect is not used doesn't qualify it for speedy deletion. You can try other methods to delete unused redirects, such as WP:RFD. — Mets501 (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
for your revert Fluffy999

Re:Nomenclator
I'll do what I can. If he keeps this up he will get sanctioned by the admins - I say we stay calm, revert with explanations, and report 3RR/civility violations when they happen. He already got blocked for 3RR last week, for what it's worth. I suspect he will resort to sockpuppetry during blocks. We should keep an eye on that as well. Cheers, Skinwalker 13:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on March 1 2007 to Veganism
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 8 hours.

This block imposed with some reluctance; but please stick by the rules

William M. Connolley 09:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ;_; Kellen T 08:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ellipsis
I think that was an incorrect replacement, I will investigate further. I was going to suggest [&hellip;] to show that the omission is editorial, but I have put the elided passaged into the text, it seems relevant. Rich Farmbrough, 13:40 2 March 2007 (GMT).

Discrimination in Veganism Article
I believe the health effects section in the veganism article is discriminatory toward vegans, and meant to cast them as nutritionally and sexually defective. This violated Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. I have made aired my concerns in the talk page at the veganism article. Please feel free to comment. Abe Froman 16:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree, because it has been proven you can be a healthy vegan with B12 deficiency the only issue, so I have reverted your edits, I feel on Wikipedia the most factual information should be displayed your edit to health effects on veganism was not and more anti-vegan bias--Migospia☆ 20:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh please. (a) I'm vegan. (b) The material cited is from vegan advocacy organizations. KellenT 22:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether or not Kellen is a vegan, the edits explaining the B12 deficiency ad-nauseam serves to marginalize the subgroup. Mention it, and move on.  Abe Froman 22:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You cited out of contex is what I am trying to say, because many vegan websites say the only health concern is B12--Migospia☆ 23:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You need to go back and re-read their pages on health then. Also reread the ADA position on vegetarian diets where they outline other potential deficiencies. B12 is the only thing vegans can't get, but vegans are also more likely to get other deficiencies than other vegetarians or omnivores. KellenT 23:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Veganism
Just wanted to tell you that I think it's wonderful that you're going through and fixing up the article. -- Madeleine 01:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool thanks! KellenT 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to chime in here as well. Stay strong. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 02:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification
Kellen, I think it might be appropriate to take a moment here and clarify something for you.

So that you are not blocked at a later date due to future actions based on a misunderstanding, it is important that you understand the reason that you weren't blocked.

The 3RR rule is clear. A user is not permitted to revert an article to previous content, in excess of 3 times in any 24 hour period. This applies to any content in non-consecutive edits. Technically you did violate that part of the rule. Additionally, a user is not permitted to repeatedly go to 3RR and stop, as that breaks the spirit of the rule.

The reason you weren't blocked, was not because you were restoring sourced material.

The only reason you were not blocked was due to the exception to the rule regarding vandalism. The person deleting the material was an anonymous IP, followed by a newly registered user, and they continued to remove the material (without proper edit comments) after being asked to participate in the discussion. For this reason alone, your first three reverts were classified as reverting vandalism and did not count against you.

That decision was made in good faith, giving you the benefit of the doubt.

However, the 'group' was edit warring and the following two reverts, against established editors, did count. Had you and those editors persisted, you would ultimately have been in violation, and would likely have been blocked.

Reverting is not supposed to be used as an editing tool. It is not the proper way to resolve content disputes. And, you cannot hold an article alone. If there are not other editors that agree with you, then you may have to concede or pursue other forms of dispute resolution, like third opinion.

Please take a moment to look at WP:BRD. It is a good guideline to use when editing.

Best of Luck and Happy Editing.

Peace in God. Lsi john 16:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I realize this although I can see how my comments to Migospia would have you believe differently. I encouraged both Migospia and Abe to take it to talk, to avoid violating 3RR. Cheers, KellenT 17:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are open to a suggestion, avoid complaining about WP:NPA. It's overly (and often improperly) claimed. You will give a much better appearance to outside editors if you 'ignore' side comments and insults and stick to the subject of the article. Take the high ground by avoiding personal remarks, and ignoring them when others make them. Besides, sometimes what seems like a personal attack, is really just frustration from the other editor because they can't explain their point well enough to get you to agree with them. Lsi john 18:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think I referenced WP:NPA at any point recently, however. A few other editors did towards Mig, but not me. Thanks for the suggestions anyhow; I appreciate your efforts. KellenT 21:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There. How's that for moving things along? :) Hopefully my edits won't cause too much chaos. Personally, I prefer my version of the lead.. of course. Lsi john 00:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow I still cannot believe this and every time I see this I get angry it is SO not fair and VERY hypocritical and favourable and Lsi john making it seem like this is all good faith and Pece in God??!, w/e, I guess later I should be admin so I could get away with a lot! =) peace--Migospia †♥ 04:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Vegan
Can you please show me the specific source that says being a vegan there are more at risk?

Expanding vegan cuisine
How do you feel about expanding the vegan cuisine section? &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 23:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think I'll have the energy for that until after some other parts of the article are more stable and reliable, but ideally it should be expanded to some degree. KellenT 02:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What about a new article, Vegan cuisine? Does that merely duplicate Vegetarian cuisine or do you think it would be helpful to have a separate article? &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 23:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really think the article would be particularly useful, nor do I think the vegetarian cuisine article is that useful. What in particular do you think needs coverage? A list of commercial vegan products? KellenT 20:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing Sourced Material / Adding unsourced material
Please do not delete relevant sourced material from articles, as you did in vegan here.

Also, please do not add unsourced material from articles, as you did in vegan here.

Repeatedly removing sourced material, which is relevant to the article, could be considered disruptive.

Similarly, wikipedia requires that all of our infomation be verifiable in published primary and/or secondary sources. Adding material which cannot be confirmed in a published source is called original research. Repeatedly re-adding original research to an article can also be considered disruptive.

Thanks for understanding.

At the moment Vegan is almost all pro-vegan information. Lets see if we can balance the article and add a little bit of sourced criticism and get Vegan classified as a Good NPOV Article. Lsi john 19:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My additions and deletions were explained in the edit summaries; I stand by them. The "unsourced" material is basic arithmetic based upon reported numbers. The removal was based upon previous consensus. Additionally, if you look at the history of the article, you'll see I am responsible for a large percentage of the citations that got the article to a reasonably NPOV status. Cheers, KellenT 20:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the % of vegans in EU, I would agree, if the source actually listed the population in EU at the time of the survey. But it doesn't. Therefore it is impossible to calculate a percentage. And, if you use a different source as a basis for the population, then you are taking SOURCE A + SOURCE B and deriving ANSWER C. This technically violates WP:OR. Besides which, the material has been removed by several editors. Repeatedly putting it back is disruptive.


 * Regarding the alleged 'out of context' citation: if it was cited, it can be reported. If you have a source which says it was 'out of context', then that can be included as well. We don't get to 'exclude' something because we think the secondary source 'might have' taken it out of context. If you have a primary source, which gives the full context, please let me know.


 * Regarding concensus:
 * New editors are not 'bound' by concensus, though they should respect it.
 * I have read much of the Vegan discussion. There is rarely anything that approaches a 'concensus'. Generally it is a free-for-all with one or two editors agreeing on any given day and declaring that to be a concensus.
 * If you have a diff which points to a concensus (majority) of editors which agreed to the L.W. material, please provide it.


 * Regarding NPOV:
 * The article is basically written from a pro-vegan perspective. (Which is fine, but its still pro-vegan).
 * There is some neutral material and there are some legitimate concerns. However, 'concerns' are not the same as 'criticism' or 'negative' information.


 * Thanks! Lsi john 20:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, so the only # you're actually taking issue with is the % derived from the 250,000 estimate? Others have added the number, so repeated removal of it is disruptive. Take it to the Veganism talk page and discuss the best resolution; I think your reading of WP:OR is unnecessarily narrow in this case.
 * As for Allen, I've commented on the veganism talk page about this. WP isn't an indiscriminate collection of everything ever written about a subject. Until recently, the article only had 1 or 2 consistent editors, and a tacit consensus was reached by (a) removal (b) announcement of removal on talk page (c) no reversions. Whee. KellenT 20:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is a strict reading. And, I have not removed the (readded) % since I did it the first time. However, others have. I merely noted it as one thing, among a list of things. It is not of significant importance, but technically it is OR.
 * I suspect that more editors have arrived, mostly due to the 3RR edit warring attention that the article has gotten. With more editors (presumably from a broader group), a previous concensus of 2 or 3, may need to be re-hashed.


 * As for strict versus relaxed interpretations.... well.. IMO the more people are fighting about material, the more strict we need to be, in order to reduce the warring.
 * This talk page of this article reminds me of religous divisions between different Protestant Denominations. They all worship the same God, but many claim that only their way is the right way. Another analogy would be the petty bickering between siblings.


 * This should be one of the easiest articles to write. It is a fairly non-confrontational subject. The fact that people are edit-warring over mundane 'cautions' regarding B12 is amazingly silly. Now that they have attracted attention to the article, it will be interesting to see what the group does when real criticism of Veganism enters the article.


 * I still think that if we all quit bickering over little stuff, we could achive the status of Good Article.


 * And, good job on your contributions so far. It's because of your good work and contributions that I came to you for support to expand on the article.


 * Lsi john 21:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Lsi John's liberal application of OR accusations have made me give up on helping with the Veganism article. It was upsetting to me to get accused of this, because I'm not invested in veganism and merely wanted to make the scientific statements more accurate (I spend most of my wikipedia efforts working on science articles). I'm not the only science wikipedian treated badly on Veganism, I felt bad for how TimVickers got treated by Viriditas, I suspect he'd followed me to the article when he saw me editing it.
 * Kellen, good luck with the article, I'm sorry if you've found my participation problematic. I do think there are too many factoids in the article: non-notable people (eg. Stephen Davis) and isolated studies (eg. B vitamins & pancreatic cancer). I think the pro-vegan health benefits section also needs to be trimmed. Madeleine 01:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry you feel that way Madeleine, I thought we had been working together just fine. I'm not invested in Veganism either. I only started when a 3RR caught my attention. Lsi john 21:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Lsi John, in my interactions with you so far I've found you frustrating to deal with (accusing me of opinion-based OR in my summarization of a vitamin/cancer study) and your attitude often comes off to me as insincerely friendly / condescending, especially when you end comments with a "Cheers" or "Peace" platitude. I've stopped watching the page and I'm going to have to take a break from it for at least a while. I know I got involved yesterday, I wanted to write down my opinions on some particular issues and "get it out of my system" although I suspect they won't be given much consideration. I feel silly having spent time on that page, my efforts are better spent (and better appreciated) adding material to and improving core science pages. -- Madeleine 23:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * conversation continued at Madeleine. Lsi john 01:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AIDS_Wolf.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:AIDS_Wolf.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 12:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Veganism GA review
Hi there, I've reviewed the article and put it on hold until some corrections and clarifications are made. If you could help out with this that would be great. All the best Tim Vickers 22:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping out with this, the nominator seems to have been a "drive-by editor" with little involvement in the article. Tim Vickers 18:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, it was my intention to put the article up for GA review at some point in the future after having cleaned it up to my satisfaction. There was a period a few weeks back where a bunch of new and somewhat disruptive editors got involved so I've backed off for the time being to let things settle down. KellenT 19:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I have just noticed that SlimVirgin is an editor on this page. She and I do not have a good relationship, could you wok out what to do about the lack of global perspective in the demographics section? I tried extending adding some material that reported animal product consumption on a global scale, but this has been removed. I've asked somebody else to take over the review, since I don't want a personality clash to mess up the GA process. Tim Vickers 22:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

LB discography
Hi! I've noticed that you've edited alot of noise rock/providence type articles, so I was wondering if I could get your opinion on Lightning Bolt discography page I just made. Specifically, I've nominated the article as a Featured List candidate, and I would love to have you comment on the article here. No pressure, just thought this was right up your alley. Thanks either way! Drewcifer 21:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:AIDS Wolf.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:AIDS Wolf.jpg. I noticed 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 even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of veganism
Hi. I'm not going to duplicate mentioning the critics I've already pointed to on the talk page (and the ones discussed on the GA) but beyond that there are more. I'm a little busy right now (I'm supposed to be on wikibreak) but off the top of my head, there's a brief criticism of veganism by Steven Bratman in his book(s), such as Health Food Junkies. Skinwalker is familiar with his "work" on orthorexia nervosa, and while we may not agree with it, Bratman does criticize adherents of the diet as underweight, guilt-tripping, religious, pseudo-scientific food fetishists. There's also similar criticism of the diet in Seligman, 2002-01-6, San Francisco Chronicle where Tom Billings claims he was threatened with violence by the "Vegan Taliban". Michael Allen Fox's pro-veg Deep Vegetarianism (1999) has some excellent criticism regarding many facets of the diet, from its scope to its difficulty. There is a recent letter in the German-language medical journal Kinderkrankenschwester (PMID: 17626574) that appears to refer to an article entitled, "Vegan nutrition is unethical", and an article entitled "Discrimination and Bias in the Vegan Ideal" (Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics, 7 1994:19), although I haven't had the time to track it down. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 22:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll see what I can do to track down some of these online or in my local library. KellenT 11:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Dutch translation
You asked me about if "Netherlands Association for Veganism" is an acceptable translation for "Nederlandse Vereniging voor Veganisme", opposed to, for example, "Dutch Vegan Society". The first is perfectly acceptable. It is a literal translation, which is more appropriate than the latter, as "Dutch Vegan Society" would translate back to something in the order of "Nederlanse Veganistische Beweging". I agree with your first choice. &mdash; Stimpytalk 16:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, happy to see that my bilingualism can be put to some good use!
 * On a completely unrelated note, I was wondering how you got the "Articles I've started" on your user page. Can you automate that, or do you have to keep it up to date yourself? &mdash; Stimpytalk 20:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. It sure would be nice if there were some way of having that list update itself. Oh, well. &mdash; Stimpytalk 20:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kijiji
An article that you have been involved in editing, Kijiji, 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. Busy Stubber (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Soy cheese
I looked at the soy cheese article a few weeks ago, and it looked like a plain advertisement. I've tried to rephrase and cut out the fat, but it has been reverted several times by one of its original authors (Reiskeks), and then by Daimakaicho, a new account that appears to be the same user. The latter user has accused me of changing the page because of "an internal war against editors this user dislikes personally" and to "destroy" it, and, of course, of not being vegan. I thought it would be good to have someone else weigh in on the situation so it doesn't just devolve into an edit war. Reiskeks didn't respond on his/her talk page or on the article's when I commented on them, and I'm not sure if Daimakaicho will discuss either. Anyway, if you'd like to, have a look. Thanks! Djk3 (talk) 06:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for watching article:Soy cheese due to vandalism
This article is constantly vandalized by one single user (Djk3, I can see already drumming for helpers :-D), who seems to plan its deletion or destruction (see also Talk:Soy cheese). I am watching over the article from now on, but it is better when more people interested in this subject (especially vegans, people with dairy digesting problems like lactose intolerance or Jews) are looking upon this more frequently. Thank you :-) Daimakaicho (talk) 09:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not forced to stay in the Wikipedia or to contribute or anything if you can (yourself or asking any other trusted editors) ensure that this article will prevail/grow/improve and not being constantly deleted/rewritten to the form of an almost useless stub (that's exactly what this "editor" did, and I consider this as vandalism).
 * Wikipedia is one of the 10 most popular/known pages on the entire internet, and this is creating some unwanted frictions (like certain special interest groups "editing" unwanted articles partially down to invisibility/insignificance).
 * This article needs monitoring by several vegan editors. It is probably even one of those, which should be semi of fully protected. There is a huge controversy over milk and lactose intolerance going on, and the article on milk has been protected already long time ago.
 * If this one user shows any kind of contribution to the article, fine. But so far I have seen only reverting and deleting and rewriting into a stub-form, contrary to all the other contributors in this case. This seems fairly strange, considering all other circumstances (he claims to be a vegan, the article is very small and needing positive improvements, it is a subject of great interest for vegans, there is a huge controversy around dairy cheese/factory farming/lactose going on with a lot of really big companies involved fearing declining profits).
 * I greatly miss a semi-protection for people, who do not use the DEL button. Especially in serious articles. And a consensus about monitoring of articles by people, who actually contribute to the given subject positively and in a constructive way.
 * Daimakaicho (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You really don't need to cross-post your reply across multiple talk pages. So please don't. KellenT 15:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Captain Ahab.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Captain Ahab.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media 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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

vegan edit
You changed; do not knowingly use...to endeaver not to use: I've got no problem with this change, it pretty much says the same thing either way. We'll see if those who were satisfied with the earlier edit are OK with this one.:) Bob98133 (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Donald watson.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Donald watson.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 STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Dummy_accounts
-- Chris  10:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

wiki.pt
Please leave message in here respecting these requirements, then a bureaucrat will answer your request. Thank you, Epinheiro (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)