User talk:Ki Longfellow

Your edit to Black Gold (horse)
Your recent edit to Black Gold (horse) (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 17:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello.
Hi. I realise you don't know me, and we haven't run across eachother before on Wikipedia, but I noticed you left a comment to the effect that you were re-thinking your involvement in Wikipedia, deleting some of your contributions, and possibly leaving.

If you wouldn't mind my asking, why? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 18:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, first do you read or contribute to horse articles? I ask this in order to know if you're familiar with mine in particular? I've gradually and painfully discovered that how I write is not how a proper wikipedian writes, and rather than reduce the color (already greatly reduced by trying to write to wiki rules), of my articles, I thought I'd just remove those which are causing whomever to tag them with tone offences. I either have to do that, or cut away what makes the article interesting. Straight facts are not my forte. I can't remove them all even though some of them are almost entirely my work because others have contributed, and though those contributions might be small, still I have no right to erase their efforts. But most of my articles have remained untouched by others, and whenever I open one to add something and discover they've been tagged by "tone," it just takes the heart out of my contributing. I just wanted to remind people of certain wonderful horses I hated to see forgotten. Perhaps I can find somewhere else to put them? Or create my own site? I don't know. I did have such a lovely time on wikipedia and was intending to fill the horse section with forgotten champions and great old stories. But thank you for asking. ..Ki Longfellow 22:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have read a couple horse articles, but not a lot of them. I'm not really sure if I've read any of yours or not.  Are there any articles in particular that have been tagged with "tone" that I can look at?  Encyclopedia writing can by dry, but it doesn't necessarily have to be.  Wikipedia's standards for featured articles (Featured Articles are supposed to be the best-of-the-best of what the Wikipedia community has produced) state that the prose in an article should be "compelling, even brilliant".  To me, that says that it has some color.  Do you know why the articles were tagged for "tone"?  I sometimes tag an article with "tone", usually if it uses pronouns like "I", "we", "you", etc.  Normally I prefer to use more specific and understandable tags if I'm going to tag someting.  I would love to see more articles about great horses in Wikipedia, and it sounds like you would love to put them here.  ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 23:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I read Zippy Chippy, and I loved it. It was funny, clever, and for the most part well-written.  I would even say it was "compelling".  But I can definately see why some people might add the tone template to it.  There is a whole discussion at Template talk:Inappropriate tone about that template and what is wrong with it, you might be interested in commenting there.  The whole idea of tone on Wikipedia is slightly controversial anyway; the llth edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, is often held up as the "the best encyclopedia ever made", and is often pointed to as being what we should strive to emulate; however, I bet that virtually every article in that, were it to be submitted to Wikipedia today, could be accused of inappropriate tone.  One of the things that made that encyclopedia great was the colorful and entertaining writing.  Like the writing in that encyclopedia, your writing is very colorful and entertaining.  This is a good thing, it is not in any way a bad thing.  However, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a neutral point of view, and they are supposed to be sourced with material from reliable sources.  What does that mean in relation to Zippy Chippy, for example?  Your lead to that article is, "Zippy Chippy is America's favorite thoroughbred racing loser."  That right there could lead to a tone tag, or a neutrality tag.  Why?  Because it is an opinion, and it is not sourced.  If, on the other hand, you were able to say that John Doe, Equine Raceing correspondent for ESPN, calls Zippy Chippy America's favorite thoroughbred racing loser, that would be fine.  Maybe a lead along the lines of, "Zippy Chippy is a thoroughbread race horse who, despite being from a long and distinguished blood line, has never won a race against other thoroughbread horses.  Despite this fact, there may be a movie in the making about him, leading many to consider him America's favorite thoroughbred racing loser."  That fleshes the intro out a bit more, draws the reader in and makes him/her interested, and reduces the "tone" concerns, especially if you can provide a source for people calling him America's favorite whatever.
 * Take a look at Al-Kateb v Godwin, it's today's featured article of the day. It's about a court case and one would think it would be boring and dry, but it isn't.  The intro and the Background section are, I would say, compelling.  They really make you feel for the poor guy's plight.  Look at Seabiscuit since you are interested mostly in race horses and it is also a featured article.  The differences between these and your writing style are subtle.  In short, no one is asking you to write bland and boring articles.  One thing I do is read the featured article of the day every day, even if it's not something I'm particularly interested in.  That way I know what Wikipedia wants in its articles.
 * I'm sorry you are getting discouraged. I really think, based on what I've seen in Zippy Chippy, that you are a great asset to Wikipedia. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 01:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As a slight afterthought, I also read Boston (horse). I thought it was very good, and it does not seem to have the "tone" problems that I can see someone contending that Zippy Chippy has.  Just thought I'd point it out. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 02:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ki, I was the person who, regretfully, had to tone down the lovely language of your Thekla article. The problem is clear - you are a wonderful writer but your Zippy Chippy style is not OK for this encyclopedia. I've looked at that article, the writing is great but the style is too racy, too opinionated, too complexly expressed and too personal to you, to be acceptable. That's a shame but that's a fact. Wikipedia is a dry compendium of facts and so your lively writing style may not fit. All this is only one persons opinion (but I am very experienced on WP having worked on pictures and text since January 2003). I've just read Boston (horse) and that is closer to the style WP is happy with. (By the way, Thekla has just been renamed as Thekla Social, makes it sound like a government department!) Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 14:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

warning
It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed content from Sysonby. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. TheRanger 23:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning for editing Zippy Chippy (diff). The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. // AntiVandalBot 15:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

barnstar

 * I second this barnstar, and though I may be a few weeks too late, would like to repeat what's been said so far: your writing is fabulous, the stories are great, the fact that someone so knowledgeable is trying hard to fill in a pretty big gap in the 'pedia's coverage is *wonderful*, and if your articles can't be toned down enough to make people stop complaining without losing something important (which I recognize is unfortunately a possibility), I fully hope you'll find a way to get them published somewhere else anyway (preferably on the web so Wikipedia could possibly cite them!) :) Seriously though, thank you very much for your time and obvious effort. --Arvedui 11:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

linkless
Read it more carefully, it refers to incoming links from other articles, not links to other articles. You can view incoming links by clicking what links here, in the case of Iroquois Handicap, there still are no incoming links from other articles. --W.marsh 21:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

link to British
Hello, when you want to link to the article about something British, please do not link to British, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as United Kingdom, Great Britain or British English by writing out British or British. Regards, Jeff3000 00:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Gallant Man
No problem, I was just removing the most egregious bits before I nominated the article for featuring in DYK. Provided it remains fairly neutral, it should end up on the Main Page within a week. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 17:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, it was just that the tone seemed in parts to be "overly flattering". And nope, prior to seeing the article on Special:Newpages I'd never heard of the horse. I'm just a fan of seeing articles in a decent state, with a fair chunk of referenced text right out of the gate. Not to mention that the 1957 Derby cockup'll make for a nice hook. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 17:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Malicious.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Malicious.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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. BigDT 23:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Editing
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sports journal, a newspaper racing column, or an opinion forum. As such, please do not change articles to insert negative information that is completely irrelevant to the article as you did with this edit at Woody Stephens Breeders' Cup Stakes. Thanx for your cooperation. Handicapper 12:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I know a long time has passed since this unfriendly, thoughtless, comment was written but I was so annoyed to read it today that I had to write and express my sadness that anyone would write to you like that. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 15:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

California Cup races
Regarding:
 * California Cup Classic
 * California Cup Distaff
 * California Cup Distance
 * California Cup Juvenile
 * California Cup Juvenile Fillies
 * California Cup Matron
 * California Cup Mile
 * California Cup Sprint‎

I recently came across California Cup Distance as an orphan page and found the other seven pages, all of which are orphans. I'm wondering if you could merge them all into one page as they do not contain much unique content.  Squids ' and ' Chips  23:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Merging and moving pages might help you with the merging part. I'm not so sure about the winners, but a table could help to organize the information.  Squids ' and ' Chips  23:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

a question

do you want to become a admin on here i think you have a good shot at it if you want to just leave a meassage on my talk page to say yes or noOo7565 21:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Malicious1.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Malicious1.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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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. Rettetast 10:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Aristide.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Aristide.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  05:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Eclipse award3.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Eclipse award3.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) 07:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kids Funny.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Kids Funny.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) 17:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Busher1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Busher1.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) 04:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:BostonFour.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BostonFour.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.

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 13:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Wakkubox (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Silky SantaAnita.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Silky SantaAnita.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 00:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Silky SantaAnita1.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Silky SantaAnita1.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! 04:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:SI Silky 58.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:SI Silky 58.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. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Longfellow.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Longfellow.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Fashion Peytona.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fashion Peytona.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. Thank you. — howcheng  {chat} 19:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Damon Runyon Stakes


The article Damon Runyon Stakes has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Notability. The article is unreferenced. So is it really notable?

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address 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 articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ...William 14:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bertram F. Bongard Stakes


The article Bertram F. Bongard Stakes has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Notability. Article is unreferenced.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address 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 articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ...William 16:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Black Gold Stakes for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Black Gold Stakes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Black Gold Stakes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. clpo13(talk) 18:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

File:DiomedTwo.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:DiomedTwo.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Sysonby.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Sysonby.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Domino Taral.jpg


The file File:Domino Taral.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious 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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:AmericanEclipse 250.jpg


The file File:AmericanEclipse 250.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious 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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Silky lilgirl.jpg


The file File:Silky lilgirl.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious 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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of General Douglas MacArthur Handicap


The article General Douglas MacArthur Handicap has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Notability."

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 article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address 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 articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)