User talk:Koavf/Archive009

Please do not modify other users' comments or formatting.

Title of Israel, Palestinians and the United Nations being debated again
Hello Koavf, six months ago you debated (and eventually won) the title of this article. You might be interested to know that this debate has been re-opened (not by me) in the talk page of the article. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Reformatting
Hi. Please reconsider edits such as this; you're introducing linewrapping that degrades the templates' appearance and function. Thanks. Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. I think the problem is that while what you're doing -- the · template between list items and relative rather than fixed width -- is in the nature of navbox templates (although there's a small problem with ·; see below), it's more prone to leaving detrimental effects on infobox-style templates (such as Template:Marxist theory linked above). For example, if you compare the current version of the Marxist theory template with your preceding version, I'd say registering the aricles linked is more straightforward in the current version (especially in the Theoretical works section), and none are almost touching the template's edges (I realize this could be fixed using padding/margin). That's all I was meaning to point out.
 * · isn't quite ideal as a divider in navboxes as, depending on the length of the link to which it's attached, it can also almost touch or even collide with templates' righthand edges. Instead, User:Davidgothberg has devised a cunning cross-browser solution here, i.e. using . Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Tibetan template
Will you please stop adding that lurid colour?? The original colour is intended to match the colour of the robes. The bright one is awful, and seems as I created the template in the first place I think I have some right to comment on how it should look. If you are concerned about readability I would strongly suggest changing the text colour to white rather than changing the colour to a bright red  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 19:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The maroon colour is intended to reflect the robes. I agree if you can change the text colour to stand out more this would be fine but changing it to a bright red isn't desirable  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 14:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hanging bull dots ? What are you talking about? If I reverted any other changes which are an improvement this wasn't intentional, it was only the colour I thought. I'll have a look to see what you mean  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 20:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please vote in survey over whether to have article title Human rights in Iran or Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran

 * 23 November 2007 Sinooher changed the article name from Human rights in Iran to Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran
 * Koavf changed the article name back to Human rights in Iran 9 March 2008,
 * Crazy Suit changed it back to Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran a couple weeks later, 23 March 2008.

We should decide this once and for all and not what the name is as it makes a difference to the wording of the text in the article.

Arguements

 * In favor of Human rights in Iran, Arguement: Most of the Human Rights articles about a particular country are just Human rights in France or Human rights in Germany and do not include the full formal name of the country.


 * In favor of Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Arguement: some articles do include the full name of the country - e.g. Human rights in the People's Republic of China (not Human rights in China). Both Iran and China underwent a revolution in the last century and both now have radically different governments then they did before  their revolution, so it makes sence to include the full name of the regime. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Black Australians
Category:Black Australians, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:R.E.M. - Accelerate back.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:R.E.M. - Accelerate back.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Cleanup!
Thanks for the clean up (Replaced: Category:Wikipedians in Raleigh → Category:Wikipedians in Raleigh, North Carolina). R.E.M.'s Murmur ROCKS ! Master Redyva  ♠  23:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Creating redirects before deletion
Thanks for dealing with some of the UCFD speedy candidates recently, but I disagree with creating redirects from the old category before they are even deleted. If this is done, there is no record of the UCFD in the deltion log, so someone may come along and restore the old category thinking your redirect was simply a bold move, not knowing the category should not be restored. Additionally, some of the redirects you created should probably not be redirects for the very reason they were nominated in the first place- There is more than one Raleigh. there is more than one Atlanta, there is more than one Anchorage, etc. I would ask that you wait until the category is deleted before creating a redirect from the old name from now on (if at all), and when you do, do your best to determine if the category would possibly work better as a disambiguation category. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * They are still showing up in the categories because the job queue is severely backlogged. The job queue is the process which pages actually disappear from categories, so pages won't actually disappear from the category until the job queue catches up (looks to be at least 16 hours behind at the moment). VegaDark (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

48 hour wait time for speedy category renames
Watch the 48 hour time for renaming categories speedily. You have been changing the names on some after 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 hours, etc. The 48 is the minimum wait-time, meaning you should wait at least that long. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Lady Aleena's redlinked categories
Koavf...Just out of curiosity, what brought you to my user page to see all of the red linked categories? I know that they are there and have hope that they will either be created or reinstated. Also, I thought my user page was long and involved, but yours is a lot more complex than I think mine could ever be. :) Have a nice day. - LA @ 05:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your concern. Even if those categories are "deleted," they are still there. I can still click on them to see how many other people are stubborn enough to keep the red linked categories on their user pages just like I am. I could put Wikipedians who edit barefoot on my user page, and then click it to see how many other people edit while barefoot, even if the link is red. Give it a try. :) - LA @ 05:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am generally awry, but thank you again for your concern. :) - LA @ 05:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

ImageRemovalBot question
Am I missing something? Why does the bot leave the image in the code of the article, but commented out instead of deleting it altogether? I can't figure out what the advantage would be to leaving it there performing no function. Please respond on my talk or else alert me that you have responded here. Thanks. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Leaving the image commented out lets editors know what used to be there, and it makes it easy to put the image back if it's undeleted or replaced. --Carnildo (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Shikwekwes
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Shikwekwes, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://theshikwekwes.com/?page_id=3. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

neighbor Wikipedia:WikiProject Berbers
We're up and running! Please visit and contribute at WikiProject Berbers! Thanks! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on Computer Program
Would you comment on this thread? Timhowardriley (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. Whether or not editors agree with me, my goal nonetheless is to increase the quality of Wikipedia articles. Timhowardriley (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I responded to your post in the talk. Timhowardriley (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me?
You seem to have declared that I no longer play go, but that I am an Archbishop of Mexico. I'm quite certain you're incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tb&diff=203210029&oldid=200678214. Tb (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop?
I'm not sure what you're doing, but, and , and then to my own page - removing categories from a user page - isn't really helping the project at all. Furthermore, changing to is pretty much a useless edit. Per WP:USER, you should probably ask before editing someone's user page. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * NP - thanks for responding :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle category
Could you point me a the debate and in future link to the specific one, thanks. --Nate1481(t/c) 09:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Errr...
I reverted this edit of yours - - I'me sure you didn't mean to blank his userpage! DuncanHill (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup edits
Hi, I've noticed you doing various cleanup edits recently that don't have an impact on article formatting (such as this one, or bypassing piped redirects (R.E.M. (band)->R.E.M.)). (The latter is discussed at Redirect.)

I guess it's not harmful either way, but there's something to be said for not adding an edit to a page's history that doesn't change the function of the page. I haven't used AWB, but I believe it lets you automatically do such cleanup at the same time as doing more substantial edits... that helps to cut down on low-priority edits that show up in recentchanges and watchlists.--Father Goose (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Template deletion
Just an oversight. I've deleted them now. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 02:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanups and Template:Userpage
I noticed you did a [ cleanup] of my user page. However, the cleanup is incorrect; Template:Userpage (the source of that block of code) is obfuscated on purpose (and also only works correctly in some cases with subst:). --cesarb (talk) 03:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies I have to admit, I have no idea why you have HTML-ized your page, but more power to you and thanks for your patience. Sorry for the inconvenience. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason is so that it will appear as "Wikipedia" even on mirrors which replace all instances of the word "Wikipedia" with their own name. All the obfuscations on Template:Userpage are designed to break such replacement attempts. Some of these mirrors are broken and don't transclude any templates, which is why I used subst: (making the undeniably ugly obfuscated code of the template appear on my user page). --cesarb (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the wikilove..:)
Nice to be loved..:) Igor Berger (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Adam Crooks (Wesleyan Methodist)
Do you think the "unreferenced" section should now be removed? Nephate (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Eels - Live and in Person! London 2006.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Eels - Live and in Person! London 2006.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) 21:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Warning
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content of marginal relevance (unnecessary trivia) to articles is not considered productive. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

How did I know?
It just showed up in the "Candidates for speedy" list. I checked to make sure it was legit, and followed your request. Maybe those don't show up on the speedy list if you're not an admin? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  04:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Birds of East Timor
Honestly, I've tried to explain this issue to you previously in as kind a way as possible and as clearly as possible, but you seem to still be having trouble stopping yourself from interfering with ongoing CFDs. Category:Birds of Timor-Leste was undergoing discussion (nominated by me) to be renamed to Category:Birds of East Timor, and you went ahead and created the category and manually migrated everything to it, thus interfering with the category's contents in the middle of a CFD. How can I explain to you that this is not OK and that regardless of how obvious the projected outcome of a CFD may be to you personally, you should not empty categories that are undergoing CFDs?!

As I said, I've told you this and similar things regarding category CFDs before, and I'm having a hard time maintaining my assumption that you mean well when you continually do the opposite of what I've gone out of my way to mention to you is proper procedure involving categories that are undergoing formal nominations. I'm curious as to what your rationale is, beyond the fact that perhaps you thought, once again, that you would predict the outcome and thus pre-empt a formal procedure that really only takes a few days of patience to get an outcome on. :( Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I see you did the same with the Category:People from Denver nomination. At least I know you're not just targeting my noms! Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * [Copied from CFD section]: You manually emptied the categories under nomination. Many editors prefer to see a category in the state it's in at the time of nomination. It doesn't seem like much to ask to have editors wait a few days for the discussion to take place before messing around with things. However, this is, of course, not the first instance of you dramatically changing the contents of a category under nomination and I would suggest that in general it's a bad habit to avoid. (PS: You referred to me as "Dear Sir"; it's best not to assume that editors are "sirs". Some aren't.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Userboxes
Nice job so far on the merging. Note that nearly all the subcats which end with "...user templates" should actually be subcats of Category:Userboxes, rather than Category:User namespace templates. (Once we have this nom out of the way, I'll be nominating most of those for a change from "...user templates" to "...userboxes". - There is a difference. - But that's for another day : ) - jc37 13:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And this is the complete list of the sub-pages of Userboxes. - jc37 13:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Migrating userboxes
Thanks I've added Lists of userboxes to the pages that you mentioned and I'm moving actual userboxes to the userboxes category from user namespace templates, like you mentioned. I may work more on depopulation later tonight. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what you're doing.
 * In the nomination, all "actual userboxes" were to be removed from all 8 cats, not recatted. the idea was/is that they should all eventually be placed in the topical subcats of Category:Userboxes, not directly in the category itself.
 * In addition, all the topical subcats of userboxes (referred to directly above) are all to be merged to Category:Userboxes.
 * Essentially, this is a merge of all the cats to Category:Userboxes, with the exception of the lists, navboxes, non-userbox user templates, and any guidelines/essays/proposals. And at the same time, removing all specific userboxes from those cats, for further subcategorisation. That said, perhaps we should create a "holding cat" for the userboxes not yet subcatted.
 * If I'm still "as clear as mud", please feel free to ask for clarification. And thanks again for your help : ) - jc37 01:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Right - I suppose I was thinking of merging them as a holding category because as I was removing categories, I realized that those userboxes were 1.) uncategorized, which is bad and 2.) possibly unlikely to be properly categorized later. If they were all in the same category, then someone(s) could go through the mess of sorting out what goes where. Does that make sense? If you want me to stick with the original plan or just stand back, I'll do that. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's do both. Since it was a CFD discussion, we should stay with that plan. And in addition, we can categorise all the now-to-be uncategorised userboxes into a "holding category". Let's call it Category:Unsorted userboxes.
 * (If I called it Category:Uncategorised userboxes, I'd likely win an award : ) - jc37 20:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay So I'll take those other categories and move them to the uncategorized category, and then it can be up to whomever to sort through them from there. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Other categories" ? Which? the topical categories? or the 6 discussed in the cfd?
 * But (presuming the latter) yes, if it makes it easier to just merge all 6 to the unsorted cat, then that would be great. it would be a lot easier to cull out the non-userboxes from there.
 * Noting that all the topical cats, per the CfD, should be recatted to Category:Userboxes.
 * Did that make sense? - jc37 21:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Pardon me Yes, that's what I meant by the "other categories" the six to be depopulated (e.g. Original Wikipedia userboxes.) So, I'll put those in the uncategorized category to depopulate and then we can get about sorting them for topical purposes. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan : ) - jc37 21:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

'The Beatles' vs. 'the Beatles'
I noticed you have recently moved numerous Beatles-related pages to new titles, capitalizing the T in "The Beatles". This is against decided (and long-debated) policy, and does not jibe with MANY official titles of related works (e.g. With the Beatles, Birth of the Beatles, etc.). Please stop; you are opening a can of worms, if not a can of BUGS, and most if not ALL of these changes are likely to just be reverted. Zephyrad (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to reply
Let's go with... go with your aesthetic? That, or READ THE WHOLE FERSHLUGGIN DEBATE before you change even ONE more such page. My blood ran cold when I saw the stack of page moves piling up; "The" vs. "the" was at the heart of a long, drawn-out, godawful debate that ran for more than a year, until it was finally settled that yes, "the" is sometimes OK.

The sides facing off were essentially trained, professional/semi-pro writers who did not see the need to use "The" each and every time, versus Beatles fans (some diehard, some rabid, and some just plain stubborn) who thought the "the" needed to be capitalized each and EVERY time, no matter what, because "it's The Beatles, guys, come on"... and advanced weak argument after weak argument, and wouldn't listen to people with degrees in this sort of thing. (Or do the same thing with ANY OTHER BANDS, even within the same article: "When the Monkees attended a party given by The Beatles, with members of the Rolling Stones present..." was typical. It looks silly, and unprofessional, and is basically hypocritical; that's the position I stuck to all along, and it wasn't just me.) Your changes run a serious risk of reigniting that whole debate, to NO happy end; this is the point I am trying to convey, showing you that old text.

That being said... if someone else should revert the changes, don't be offended, and this is the reason. I did let an admin know what was going on. If I cannot persuade you to undo those page moves (at least on the pages older than one year), someone else may well undo them, and may also tell you about the whole mess, with or without "gratuitous profanities". Zephyrad (talk) 06:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply ^3
I'm not obligating you to read the whole debate; I'm hoping to convey to you how much grief and ill-will was generated over the issue. And you're right, there was no final consensus; it was more an agreement to disagree, so everyone involved could get on with better things (like life). You're not the first person to make those changes, or think they should be made, and I mostly wanted to warn you that this is still kind of a touchy issue. If nothing happens because of those page moves, I won't cry. But if it does... don't say I didn't warn you, and I hope you have a sturdy raincoat. That's all. Cheers. Zephyrad (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is contrary to similar Wikipedia policy. It is also contrary to life, common sense, and anything Mom told you. I mostly wanted to give you a heads-up, that you might be opening a can of larvae here. And I forgot to mention you might want a pair of waders, to go with that raincoat. ;-) Zephyrad (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-administrators closing CfD discussions
I saw you closed the discussion for "Nepal artists"]. Please see [[Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_CfD_discussions|this section of a WP process manual:

"Note that Categories for discussion/Working has been protected from editing by non-admins due to exploitation by vandals. As such, CfD decisions which require admin or botwork to complete, such as 'delete', 'merge', or 'rename', should not be closed by non-admins as they will be unable to make the necessary WP:CFD/W edits."

If closing is something you'd like to do, I suggest you apply for adminship. The reason I bring this up is I don't know that I agree with the process of keeping a category redirect from an old category that is renamed speedily or after a full CfD. If it goes through WP:CFD/W it can be deleted properly and the previous editors' identities preserved when the new category is created. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but notice
You seem to be removing some Islam-related pages (Quran, Allah, and Muhammad that I know of) from the Islam category for varying reasons. I notice that you replaced the Islam category with 'Islamic Mythology' in one instance. That in particular you can see why it might be seen as a malicious or POV edit, but I felt that assuming such a thing would be particularly unfair without asking you about it first, as you seem to be a dedicated contributer with quite a few edits under your belt. I was wondering if you could enlighten me, if you please, as to the reason you decided to make those particular edits? My apologies for the necessity of asking this, and thank you in advance for your reply. '' May you go in God's care. '' Peter Deer (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, that was what I was referring to and you are correct that I did overlook that particular bit. I apologize for that. As for the 'redundant categories' as you have said there was recently a couple other editors who made similar edits to pages in the Manifestations of God in the Baha'i Faith category, the Abrahamic Religion category, and the Baha'i Faith category proper. There was an initial dispute on the matter but I believe that it was found that for informative reasons that them being in a related subcategory did not mean that they weren't to be in the parent category as well.
 * I agree with that particular ruling only because it seems odd not having things like Quran, Muhammad, and Allah visibly within the Islam category. On a side note I also feel that the category system might need to be revamped at some point, but that's something no one wants to hear. Anyway, thank you for answering my question so quickly and courteously, happy editing!  May you go in God's care.  Peter Deer (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
Please do not use rollback for reverting edits other than blatant vandalism or spam as you did here. This is an inappropriate use of the rollback tool and repeated use in content disputes is grounds for removal. Mr.  Z- man  04:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have blocked you for 6 hrs because of this revert which was not clearly labeled as a revert. The original edit is here and you were reverted here.  You then reverted with an edit summary of removing redundant and unalphabetized category. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Koavf explained these reverts to me on my talk page . A 6-hour block isn't anything to argue about, but I just thought anyone involved should about this. As you can see I suggested he be a bit more descriptive in his edit summaries in the future.  Equazcion •✗/C • 10:53, 14 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Saleh and Hud
I have removed your edits to Saleh and Hud indicating that they are Manifesations of God in the Baha'i Faith. I have searched long and hard, but have not found any secondary sources from reliable sources indicating that they are Manifestations of God. Interpreting material from a primary source material is considered original research and is not appropriate. From WP:OR, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." For example, the Iqan states "And after Noah the light of the countenance of Hud shone forth above the horizon of creation"; to take that to mean that Hud was a Manifestation of God requires an interpretation, which as individual editors we cannot do as that would be original research. Given that nowhere in the Iqan does it explicitly state that Saleh or Hud is a Manifestation of God, a secondary source is needed. Note that the Concise Encyclopedia of the Baha'i Faith by Peter Smith just states that Hud and Salih are Islamic prophets. Finally, other wikis are not acceptable as sources; from WP:V, "open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable". Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

John Hall
I noticed that you moved John Hall (New York) to John Hall (politician). There is also another John Hall (UK politician) so shall we name our famed Orleans singer to John Hall (US politician) as well? hbdragon88 (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mohamed_Abdelaziz_and_flag.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Mohamed_Abdelaziz_and_flag.png. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)