User talk:Kickstar1

License tagging for Image:Dryve.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Dryve.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 07:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Humsmall.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Humsmall.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 05:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability
Regarding your inquiries about the deleted article, unfortunately it is not possible for you to personally verify the information in Wikipedia articles. Please review the policies on verifiability and original research. Information must be verified through reliable secondary sources, such as published news articles, books, magazines, etc. If the band has an official website, some information might be able to be verified there. See the section on self published sources in WP:V, but the article cannot be primarily based on such self-published sources. You can request that the deleted article be restored to your user space, where you can work on improving it, and then move it back into main namespace if/when it meets all applicable standards. - Crockspot 01:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to concur with the above comments. I will leave you welcome information to help you out in future editing efforts, though. -- K u k i ni  hablame aqui 05:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing apparently changed to cause the second nomination, apparently a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I find it upsetting when deletionists keep nominating an article for deletion they get their way and it is deleted. You can request that the article gets restored in your userspace, as discussed above. You could create an area that Wikipedians call a sandbox to work on the article. Your sandbox could be called anything, but I suggest User:Kickstar1/sandbox. You will need to improve it by sourcing it before you can return it to the main article area (called mainspace or articlespace). I agree with all the comments above too. Royal broil  05:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I left you a further reply on my talk page. - Crockspot 23:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I like how Crockspot worded his/her comments on his/her talk page. You can find out more about admin review or undeletion at Requests for administrator attention. Don't bother asking the deleting admin to restore the file, for they appear to be missing. I pointed you to a broad scope article, intending that you look at the two links under "Undelete a page or allow you to view a deleted page? Visit:" . When you ask for the article to be returned to your sandbox, make sure that you point to both the first and second deletion discussion. You have a very strong and valid argument that it is considered disruptive to nominate an article for deletion one month after it was easily kept. Someone was manipulating the system to their advantage in my opinion. You also can point out this current discussion. Our willingness to help you with this problem demonstrates that other wikipedians wonder if this should have been deleted after it was already discussed and kept. Deletion discussions usually go like this: 1) someone nominates the article for deletion, 2) within a few hours or a day there are people that agree that it should be deleted almost no matter what (except if it is a very obvious keep) 3) if it is to remain, someone actually seriously looks into the article, points out why it should be kept by either googling or improving the article. Apparently no one came forward this second time. I have never understood why the first discussion is not considered during the second discussion. Royal broil  03:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of Dryve article
Perhaps you may want to present some of the references for the subject in question? - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)