User talk:Lumos3/Archive 4

Archive of comments from April 2007 to October 2007 at Lumos3's Discussion page, placed here 2 January June 2008. Lumos3 (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

new here
Please stop this edit war

Reversion wars between competing individuals are contrary to Wikipedia's core principles, reflect badly on both participants, and often result in blocks being implemented due to violations of the three revert rule. Please try to come up with a wording that the other party might consider acceptable. See Wikipedia:Edit war. Lumos3 22:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

new here
"Please stop this edit war

"Reversion wars between competing individuals are contrary to Wikipedia's core principles, reflect badly on both participants, and often result in blocks being implemented due to violations of the three revert rule. Please try to come up with a wording that the other party might consider acceptable. See Wikipedia:Edit war. Lumos3 22:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)"

.............................................................................

I am new here, and it would have been helpful if I could have gotten some helpful advice instead of confrontation. If it were possible to return the Alice Bailey page to as it was last week, and give some interested people time to make improvements, that would be wonderful. Although the article was badly done, improvement would be better than deletion. At least that is how it seems to me. However, it is certainly true that I do not understand the process of how things work here very well as yet. If you have any helpful suggestions, that would certainly be appreciated.

kwork

Albert Kahn
Thanks for jumping in with the contributions on Albert Kahn. After catching the feature on Radio 4's "Front Row" and the comment that there was nothing on wikipedia about him, I started that article with the first para and left the rest for later, since I was at work at the time ( 2pm in the USA). Maybe the Radio 4 people will get a pleasant surprise if they take another look. Cheers, mate. Djdaedalus 01:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I heard the R4 piece too and that prompted me to take a look. Thanks for poiting out the French article asa source. Lumos3 01:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hosting sites
In the arbitration proceedings for Waldorf education and related articles, there were extensive discussions of standards for websites; it is my understanding that the arbitrators have clearly laid down guidelines for these as well, and that the Waldorf critics website (as well as pro-Waldorf websites) were not considered appropriate links, even if articles resided there that would otherwise be acceptable. Our goal should be to find neutral sources. Hgilbert 01:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not linking to the site only to a document hosted there and authored by a Proffesor of Science Philosophy. This is a key document on the Scientific basis of Anthoposophy. If the document itself is relevant then it is imaterial who hosts it.  Lumos3 07:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Pantheon Oxford Street
I have answered your year old question on Talk:Pantheon, London. Brandon97 16:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Early infanticidal childrearing
Someone placed a {no-context} tag in this psychohistorical article. To me it doesn't need a better intro and it's understandable. What do you think?

—Cesar Tort

Fair use rationale for Image:Neil kinnock.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Neil kinnock.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.

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 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. Ilse@ 10:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I only now read in the license tag "This image must have an accompanying "fair use" tag and criteria, or it may be deleted.". Before you add this, I would like to mention that the use of this image in Wikipedia is questionable, since fair use images of living people are generally not accepted as valid fair use. For more information about this: Fair use (example number 8). – Ilse@ 11:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey Article
Thanks for your attention to this article. I hope you will continue to keep and eye on it and so help midwife a good effort.James 15:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lumos3, I've made a fresh start on the Alice Bailey article after Kwork deleted everything. It has lots of references now. Thanks again for helping keep this bio on track.

Thanks,

James 00:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to this article. As a result of your help, it has progressed from an article with no sourcing, to an article with one source. And it has progressed from an article with a serious attempt at discussion of Baileys antisemitism, to one with the 'criticism' written by one of her enthusiastic followers. Thanks for the help. Thanks for the help. James is, of course, over joyed because he can now write the article as he wants it written. The result will be typical of Wikipedia, which institutionalizes mediocrity. Thanks for the help. Thank you so much. Kwork 12:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Project
I was proposing a project on the WikiProject Council/Proposals page but it seems to have fizzled out. I've started again on it, the proposal may be readded, i do not know. Anyway, i've created a user sub-page which is a start at User:Simply south/WPHerts, if you are interested. Simply south 17:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made it go live. Do you know how i can encourage people to help with the setting up of the project? Simply south 17:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Neil kinnock.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Neil kinnock.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ilse@ 21:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey Again UPDATED
Kwork has appended a criticism of Alice-Bailey-as-antisemitic to the biography I last worked on--the criticism is equal to the size of the biography itself and now focused almost exclusively on the antisemitic thing. Seems like more of a setup for a debate than a valid expansion of the bio; does not seem to be in right perspective. I've given up trying to speak with him myself. Seems to have an agenda, a mission to brand Bailey as antisemitic. Your input is desired. James 16:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I improved the criticism section. Now he wants to delete the entire biography.James 17:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Plastics Types.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Plastics Types.gif, has been listed at Images and media 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. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Asking approval to revise Image:OTEC diagram.gif
Lumos3, you uploaded the subject OTEC diagram on November 11, 2006. I think it needs to be slightly revised by adding two arrows indicating the ammonia flow direction. One arrow pointing to the left at the pump discharge and one arrow pointing down at the turbine outlet. If you would like do so, please let me know. Otherwise, if you agree, I will make the revision. Please let me know which you prefer. Regards, - mbeychok 23:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please make the changes, This is a GDFL image so any image you make must remain GDFL. Its not my work . I found it under a free use license as stated on the image page. I think your changes are sensible one. Lumos3 08:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and I have revised the image. - mbeychok 17:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The poor energy article
As noted, Hallen, after totally screwing up the energy article, is now going to actively prevent anybody from writing a summary of science-based energy. I really see no alternative but to get him banned from editing the thing. Otherwise we're never going to be left alone to write it. I'm open to suggestions. S B Harris 21:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest we come up with a proposal for the structure for all of the Energy articles. Get a consensus by having a vote and then implement it. Hallen may well cooperate with this. If he then tries to act against this then we go to WP:RFC for wider comment.


 * My proposal would be:
 * Energy redirects to Energy (science) with a note at the head pointing to Energy (disambiguation)


 * Energy (science) is a general review of energy across all sciences.


 * Energy (physics) is a more detailed expansion of the physics point of view


 * Energy (biology)etc. These articles are mostly summaries and do not support separate articles. They become part of the Energy (science) overview.


 * Specific named forms of energy retain their independent status as articles linked as appropriate from all the above.

Lumos3 08:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Mem dream reflec Jung.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mem dream reflec Jung.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. meco 14:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Edgard Cayce article
Hi,

Regarding my edit to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edgar_Cayce:

"Skeptics challenge that Cayce demonstrated psychic abilities and >>conservative Christians<< also question his unorthodox answers on religious matters ..."

The reason I removed the mention of "conservative Christians" is because it implies that they are the only ones that question Cayce's statements on religion. I don't believe that's true, do you? Unfortunately, I'm pretty certain that most Christians, conservative or not, question Cayce's religious revelations.

Also, since in this context "conservative Christians" are also "skeptics", it isn't really necessary to mention them.

I'd like to revert that edit, if it's OK with you?

-- ccpearson


 * The term skeptic has come to be associated with those who are skeptical of all supernatural religion. To call Christians who mistrust Cayce’s claims skeptics is to mislead the reader since they are believers in one form of the supernatural. The two groups who criticise Cayce the most are the skeptics and the conventionally religious. I think both need to be mentioned. Lumos3 22:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[ccp] Isn't it likely that there are many of other faiths (Muslim, Hindu, etc.) that question or reject Cayce's statements about Jesus the Christ, our "Elder Brother"? Should the article mention those groups as well? Seems like a slippery slope. Perhaps there's another term for "skeptic" that isn't tainted in the way you say? Ccpearson 22:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It is likely but its is conventional Christians who have been most vocal and so deserve to be mentioned. Can you find any examples of Hindu or Islamic criticism of Cayce. It would be good to have it cited in the article. Lumos3 22:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:ComScore.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:ComScore.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 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Solar power
Why do you think the dates are important? There are no other charts showing insolation for other years, and it was measured over 10 years ago. By the way the forecasted area was for 2003, not 2010, but what year it was forecast for is moot because the tiny dots would look the same if it was 2003, 2010, 2020, or even 2050. So I assume you are saying that the 1991-1993 dates are the ones that are important to you. Please explain why. 199.125.109.73 22:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The dates are what makes it a piece of research and not just propaganda. The years of measurement are important because as climate changes then cloud cover will also chnage and so will the map. The black dots would look very different in 1992 or 2050 because there is exponential growth of energy useage.  We have to give the reader some idea of the context of the map. Lumos3 09:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonesense. 199.125.109.56 13:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Bank of butterfield logo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Bank of butterfield logo.gif. 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 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Bond image & caption text
Hi. I added a new section 'Bond image & "caption text" -- delete it?' to Talk:Industrial Revolution in response to your edits. (I think work is needed.) --kop 19:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hairposter.gif
I have tagged Image:Hairposter.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. Videmus Omnia Talk  04:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Solar Power
Hello... I've requested the solar power article's name be changed to solar energy. Do you support this change? Please sound off on this pro or con. Mrshaba 08:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

ISS time zone.
Thank you for adding the information about the ISS time zone. I had asked that question in the discussion page for the ISS (What Time zone is it using? Kember 02:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)) and had never been able to find out if they might be awake or sleeping when I see them passing over Los Angeles shortly after sunset. Last Sunday evening, the 19th of August, I saw the ISS and the Shuttle Endeavour shortly after they had undocked and wondered which was leading and which was following. Do you know? Kember 11:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Glenda Green
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Glenda Green, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Glenda Green seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Glenda Green, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 21:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

New age
Hi,

I reworded or removed some of the recent additions you made to New Age (thus). Part is to avoid the use of the second person as per WP:TONE. Also, several of the references you added to the page didn't seem to support the information they were paired with barring some deductive leaps, which put it into the territory of original research. WLU 17:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I will reword them to fit the guidelines. Lumos3 21:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Neil kinnock.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Neil kinnock.jpg, has been listed at Images and media 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. Ilse@ 23:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Ilse@ 23:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Grupthink.JPG
I have tagged Image:Grupthink.JPG 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. Alpta 22:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Grupthink.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Grupthink.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. BetacommandBot 16:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Zed Zoolander
Are you sure this isn't a joke? I couldn't find anything about it on Google. NawlinWiki 11:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ive tracked it down its part of The Bots Master - Delete. Lumos3 11:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Solar Power
Thanks for coming back to the page. I liked your edits tonight. If you've been following the page for the last few weeks I'd like to know what you think of my edits on the page. Do you think I have brought good info to the table or have I been a complete prick? Please be straight forward.Mrshaba 08:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, what did you think of the three pictures I had used formerly on the page? Orange sun surface, yellow sun and blue earth. I thought the message was clearly from the sun to the earth or the earth is solar powered. I thought the pictures were dynamic and great but they were torn down within 24 hours. It's been frustrating.Mrshaba 09:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I restored the lead picture series I like. What do you think?Mrshaba 09:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * They are a big improvemernt on the diagram they replace. I would like to see some representation of the technology as well. Lumos3 19:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Check it out. Mrshaba 04:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your input on the solar power page if you have some time. Mrshaba 02:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back. Your edits to the salt pond were perfect. I wrote the phase change stuff that you removed. I can see why you removed it. When I did the research I found phase changes described as thermochemical. They can be grouped under heating or chemical. I grouped them under chemical because I had been working on the chemical section at the time. Thermochemical solutions to solar energy storage are well represented in the solar books. I would like to keep some of this info. What do you think? Over to storage or heating? Mrshaba 04:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I know the solar pond picture wasn't clearly about solar energy. A good part of my editing has been directed toward pointing out that solar energy isn't simple. It's broad. It's in places you don't expect. So I liked the picture because I fly out of San Fran all the time and never knew that salt ponds were responsible for those colors. I put the picture in #1 because the section didn't have a picture and #2 because the picture was colorful. Can you suggest a replacement? I think we should at least try to have a picture for each section. Thoughts? Mrshaba 04:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to vote
You as someone who participated in the editing of English people article might be interested in taking part in this discussion. Feel free to state your opinion. M.V.E.i. 16:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Major new update to the Bailey Biography
I've posted a major update to the biography. It contains new sections and a reorganizing of headings and subheadings in way that more closely approximates AAB's life and work. It is throughly referenced and with some new references throughout, together with quotes and paraphrases that closely matches the citations. It includes many new details and documentation on her life and conflict with the Theosophical. Kind Regards to all. James 16:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * At first reading I am very impressed . Good piece of work. Many thanks. Lumos3 16:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:McGill_betting.jpg
I have tagged Image:McGill_betting.jpg 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. Seraphim Whipp 16:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello :-)
You offered a really nice idea at the English people talk page, and it was supported by a majority, but you still haven't uploaded this new version. If there are any problems in creating it you can ask help from people on the talk page:-) Thank you. M.V.E.i. 17:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Are you being served.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Are you being served.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. BetacommandBot 18:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Alice Bailey.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Alice Bailey.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. βcommand 22:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Alice Bailey.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Alice Bailey.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. BetacommandBot 15:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of fictitious films (2nd nomination)
As you participated in the first AfD for this article, I thought you would be interested that it has been nominated once again. SkierRMH 21:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:RSG Screenshot2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:RSG Screenshot2.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 16:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded
Thanks for uploading Image:Angelique du Coudray.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Angelique de Coudray.jpg. The copy called Image:Angelique de Coudray.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 22:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Warboys.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Warboys.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 21:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Glenda Green
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Glenda Green meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Glenda Green. Don't forget to add four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. -- Orange Mike 02:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)