User talk:Lesfer/Archive.4

Re: User
Hi. I looked into it. At this point, this could still be credited to newbie mistakes. The user has received a warning about tagging articles for deletion with unsupported reasons. Let's see how he will behave from now on. We can only consider him disruptive if he ignores warnings and continues to tag articles inappropriately. If necessary, a second warning may be given in the form of one of the "test" templates. Depending on his response and demeanor, we may consider an action to stop further disruption, if it were to be made clear that this was the user's intention all along. Redux 03:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from the DCDP
Different incarnations, are in fact, different. It does not matter if it is Jay Garrick compared to Barry Allen, or Kal-L to Kal-El. You ignored our conventions and called them "junk" and "corrupting"  Very interesting double standard you have.Kokushishin 13:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Netkinetic has retired. Brian Boru is awesome 02:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mongul Gibbons.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Mongul Gibbons.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 14:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Qwghlm 16:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Robotman (comics)
I've been mulling over this for a week or so, and I'm still not sure quite how I feel about it, so I thought I'd just get it out here. I'm uncomfortable with the way that you've changed Robotman (Cliff Steele) to redirect to Robotman (comics). This is on two grounds. The first is that, as a main character in Doom Patrol - indeed the only character to have been in the series throughout - it strikes me as being not right that he doesn't have his own article while the other members do. My second objection is that putting the information for Cliff Steele and for the other Robotman character on the same page implies that there is a direct connection between the two - like there is between Jay Garrick and Barry Allen, or Hal Jordan and Kyle Rayner - when as far as I can see there is no direct connection or shared history whatsoever, they just happen to have the same name. This, I feel, makes having a single page for both of them hugely misleading, and I think they should have their own pages again.H. Carver 05:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that it is my opinion, which is why I tried to open a dialogue here instead of simply reverting or undoing your changes. As you advise, I will bring the matter to the attention of the ComicsProject and see what consensus arises. H. Carver 13:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Firestorm_raymond.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Firestorm_raymond.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source 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 OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 09:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

World Team of the 20th Century
Hmm; that's a quite fine question and one to which I can't readily find an answer. I haven't much of a clue as to whence I got the information as regards the pre-1982 World Soccer awards&mdash;I'm inclined to think I meant to reference another award but don't know which&mdash;but I'll look into it a bit and get back to you and edit the article directly. Thanks for catching my ostensible (and confusing) error! Cheers, Joe 00:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Having found no source at all for the pre-1982 awards, I removed them from the award enumeration. I remain altogether perplexed as to what in the world I might have thought, but you are, to be sure, quite right; thanks once more for the diligence. :) Joe 05:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Liberty Belle
Hi there, Jc37! Any news about the matter? Cheers —Lesfer (t/c/@) 02:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In my (currently laughably nearly non-existant) spare time, I've done a bit of searching. Nothing yet, and perhaps we should assume good faith here. My concern (ignoring questions of accuracy) is that it just seems too "polished". It also could be a fork of some kind from some other encyclopedic web site. I suppose the best thing to do at this point is to note the edit in case further information turns up. I of course welcome any other opinions on this : ) - jc37 22:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: anon
Hi. I've left him a stern warning, since he had already stopped editing by the time I got here. If he does it again, I will do something about it. Thanks for the heads up. Redux 00:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

JLA Box
Thanks for cleaning it up. I wasn't quite sure how. --CmdrClow 06:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Power Boy
I thought it was better because it showed a cover of him by himself, as opposed to a cropped panel. You can change it back if you want. --DrBat 23:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Pele's goal count
Please do not revert Pele's number of goals for Santos to the lower number again. Why the number is given as 589 is very well explained within the article. If you do not agree with it you should start a discussion stating why and try to get a concensus. From my perspective the current view is that all domestic league appearances/goals should be counted. aLii 14:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Since when did "domestic" equal "national"? As far as I'm concerned anything regional comes within the scope of the term "domestic". If you want to be overly pedantic about it then the only "national league" that Pele ever played in was the Campeonato Brasileiro, in which he played 84 games, scoring 34 goals.
 * I direct you to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football to make your argument. I started a discussion there over a week ago about this very matter. I would like to see evidence of more than just you backing your claim. aLii 14:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, no. For the Torneio Rio-São Paulo you can easily tell from the name that it is a regional competition. There are plenty of Brazilian teams outside of those two areas. The Torneio Roberto Gomes Pedrosa was played partially as a league, but it certainly wasn't run along the lines of what we now understand to be national leagues. For example, have a look through the final tables on rsssf.com (see here). Anyway, none of this gets around the point that regional competitions are part of the domestic calendar. aLii 22:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Unsourced stats in footballers articles
I left a (hopefully) clearer warning at the anon's talk page. I will temporarly block the IP if such edits take place again. take care, --Mariano (t/c) 17:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't respond earlier. It looks like the user's not only ignoring the "league goal only" instructions, but making up numbers on the spot like in this edit. I left the standard warning, so if it continues, we can request a block. Ytny (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Aquaman
I'm sorry. I just wanted to do it to prove to my friend that aquaman is way better than Silver Surfer. I am asking that I do it tomorrow just for a little bit so I can print it out and show my friend that Aquaman is better. Sorry for the false information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.237.154.187 (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Notice
Most of those cats were restored by the March 14 ruling! Just keeping you up to date.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Basically they ruled to listify most but keep a few after the closing admin requested it be put back to CfD again.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Helena Wayne
Hi there, Jc37! You said "it was fairly unanimous that both Power Girl and Huntress (Helena Wayne) were notable enough to have their own articles". Well, no it wasn't because these are two different articles by the simple fact Wayne's has no ongoing history since 1985. And Power Girl has. All the discussion is here. Things were pretty much decided but here again we have an editor who just can't let it go and face that people do think different from him. Well, my opinion's in the talk page just as all that debate and what was previously established. I won't argue over it again. If you decided you just won't respect what it is established, it's not my problem anymore. Cheers, man —Lesfer (t/c/@) 14:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that that discussion was one in which was long enough that any interested party could claim just about anything, if they choose to ignore parts of it. It was a lengthy discussion over several locations.


 * As for your comment about "since 1985".. That's as immaterial as suggesting that Socrates,  George Washington, Jack Benny, or even Jack Kirby are not either. "Things were pretty much decided..." - the "things" was that an Earth-Two characters list article should be created/developed, and we should table the discussion until after that. (I seem to recall that I proposed the compromise, based on something I'd previously heard from User:Steve block.)


 * And yes, in the past, Netkinetic has been a "bit" overzealous when being bold, but AFAICT he's working on it, and if the note he left on my talk page is any indication, he "appears" to want to peacefully talk this out. So perhaps your best recourse is to WP:AGF and enter into a discussion with him. Yes, communication with others can sometimes not be a pleasant experience, especially when one is attempting the communication of ideas (which at times can be downright frustrating). But I think from such discussion, Wikipedia benefits : )


 * In any case, consensus can change, and I hope you do take this opportunity to try to talk this out. I'll be glad to help. And I do hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 05:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, when you compare a comic book character to real people, with real lifes, I cannot argue anymore.


 * Anyway, I don't understand why "Helena Wayne" now is an article without any discussion. Shouldn't it be discussed before? Yes, consensus can change, I know that, but shouldn't we follow the old consensus until reaching a new one?


 * This is a little bit confusing... Five days ago he was proposing merges into "Huntress (comics)". Then, two days later, with no previous discussion, he splits an section (Helena Wayne) into an article to propose the merging of this same article back in "Huntress (comics)"? I just don't get it. This is way too confusing. All these merges are being discussed at Talk:Huntress (comics) —Lesfer (t/c/@) 06:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm comparing "noteworthy historical data" to "noteworthy historical data". Whether the source is a fictional work (DC Comics publications) or a non-fictional work (biographical publications) shouldn't matter.


 * As I said above, Netkinetic has been overzealous in bold action at times. But by the same token, I see that Netkinetic has joined in with the discussion, so perhaps consensus can still be determined.


 * Thanks for the link. I dropped a response there. - jc37 17:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "As I said above, Netkinetic has been overzealous in bold action at times. But by the same token, I see that Netkinetic has joined in with the discussion, so perhaps consensus can still be determined."


 * Yep, but I think you're missing my point. Until new consensus is reached, shoudn't we be following the ongoing one? Or are we just supposed to change it the way we want and propose later expecting that consensus will reflect the exact changes we've made? —Lesfer (t/c/@) 17:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (In responding, I'm ignoring, for the moment, that, for reasons I've already mentioned above I think you're misreading and misplacing the use of "consensus" for the discussion you linked to.)


 * To respond: Not necessarily. Also, read over Consensus and WP:BOLD. (WP:IAR is a general policy, but these are more specific, and are more easily applicable.) The whole point is to not be "disruptive". But yes, consensus is often challenged in such ways. The key thing is to not be disruptive about it.


 * As a side note, I'm not a fan of WP:BRD, but I have to accept that it has its adherents. - jc37 18:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Campeonato Sudamericano de Clubes (football) (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. // MartinBot 20:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Rio de Janeiro
Lesfer, flood articles with several images? Look this, and this. The article is excellent thus, if you find that the necessary article to change, please, open a discussion in talk page.  Fe li pe  ( talk ) 16:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Good, I made editions but nobody was against. Please, open a new discussion in the talk page.  Fe li pe  [[Image:BRAlogo1.png|15px]] ( talk ) 17:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Lesfer, the images don't flooding the article, your resolution must be small. E se achar melhor, pode falar em português, assim pode poupar o Translator.  Fe li pe  [[Image:BRAlogo1.png|15px]] ( talk ) 17:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Lesfer you think that images exist excessively, I don't think that. E ai? Who has the reason? I go to open a discussion in the talk page.  Fe li pe  [[Image:BRAlogo1.png|15px]] ( talk ) 17:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Carioca RFA
Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (31/4/1), so I am now an administrator. If you have any comments or concerns on my actions as an administrator, please let me know. Thank you! --Carioca 20:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you doing?
Hi Lesfer,

I'm waiting a message from you. I consider that flags give more visual information. I'm not vandalising nothing. And you are destroying without any consideration my work.

Zigurat 22:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Barryallen-kitson.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Barryallen-kitson.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 23:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:CYC 2007.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:CYC 2007.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 03:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:CFZ Rio.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:CFZ Rio.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 04:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Classic JSA.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Classic JSA.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 18:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Connor hawke.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Connor hawke.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 21:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Emerald dawn II.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Emerald dawn II.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 04:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Felix faust.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Felix faust.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 07:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Flamengo rowing shield.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Flamengo rowing shield.gif. 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 09:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Garrick ross.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Garrick ross.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 10:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:New northwind.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:New northwind.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. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 16:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:GoldenEagle v1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:GoldenEagle v1.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. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 16:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Jordan pacheco.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jordan pacheco.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. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 06:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:JSA Pacheco.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:JSA Pacheco.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. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 10:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

1987 National title of Flamengo
Hi Lesfer,

There were some recent issues in editing Flamengo article. I'd like to insist that 1987 National title of Flamengo is NOT recognized by Brazilian officials. So, it should NOT be listed as an actual title. It would be ok to have the explanation at the bottom of the section about the controversy.

Remember that we are an encyclopedia, so we must keep in considerations the actual facts, not personal feelings.

Thx,

(Dpmelo 15:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Hi Lesfer,


 * What I'd like to point with my edition is that the actual fact is that Flamengo does NOT own the 1987 National Title, which is owned by Sport Recife. If you put the title in the list, even with the footnote, one might assume that the title is de jure owned by Flamengo, and that Sport reclaims it, when the case is the inverse. Note that there is an inconsistency between Flamengo and Sport article, since both list their clubs as 1987 National Champions. I ask you to understand this, and leave me an answer later. (Dpmelo 15:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

Non-free use disputed for Image:Killer frost.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Killer frost.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. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 22:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Helena wayne.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Helena wayne.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. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 23:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Max larocque.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Max larocque.png. 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. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 23:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Images set for deletion
Hi, Lesfer! The flag image is not that important, and it is not worth keeping it. However, the rowing logo needs to stay in the article, as rowing is a very important part of Flamengo's history and Flamengo is still very active in this sport. The fair use rationale of the rowing logo can be more or less like the one from the old York City FC logo. We can also add something like "This image is used to depict the text about the club's history and helps explain and illustrate the club's foundation as a rowing club." Hope that helps,

Regards, --Carioca 03:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense
Hi, Lesfer! I deleted the article. Regards, --Carioca 20:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Maracanã
Hi, Lesfer. As you think that and  are one and the same, the best approach is to go here.

I will revert Estádio do Maracanã to your last version, but I will change the stadium capacity to 95,000, because I will add the 2007 Pan American Games official website as a reference. What do you think?

Regards, --Carioca 18:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Your message

 * Is it possible to do that with tags? ShakespeareFan00 14:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:VandalSavage.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:VandalSavage.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 04:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Wildcat grant.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Wildcat grant.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 04:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Wildcat animated.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Wildcat animated.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 04:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wallyflash1.GIF
I have tagged Image:Wallyflash1.GIF as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. Thank you. ElinorD (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Power Boy2.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Power Boy2.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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. Sfan00 IMG 18:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sinestro Corps Main Image
Hello I was googling for a source for the main image of the Sinestro Corps, but I couldn't find it. I found an image of Sinestro on the DC comics website in the same pose with an identical background, but none of the other members. I added a fari use rationale box, but I'm afraid that the admin might try and delete the image if there isn't an appropriate source. If you could put in the link, I (and many others I'm sure) would appreciate it. There's already a warning on the image's page. :^/  Don MEGĂ | 60645  15:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)