User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 26

AH/EB greenhouse
Hey Angr, I've responded to this tag on its comment page. The ultimate source of the image is the US National Archives and as such it is PD in the states. Meanwhile I've never heard of any Braun heir or other assign claiming ownership of any of her 16mm colour home movies, of which this is a single frame. Thirdly, and apart from these two circumstances, I suspect it would easily qualify as fair use (low res, no other available image and so on). Cheers, Gwen Gale 02:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If everything from the US National Archives is PD, then that's okay. But the absence of a claim from an heir doesn't make it PD, and to be fair use it also has to meet all the other requirements of non-free content; specifically, as a movie still it could only be used in the context of critical commentary of the film in question, which this isn't. —Angr 04:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Given its provenance and sourcing from the US National archives its PD status in the US is assertable. Meanwhile and separately, its history as a frame from a motion picture film does not limit its fair use to critical commentary of the amateur home movie from which it came. The very low resolution copy of the frame directly illustrates the topic of the article, which concerns the dietary habits of an historical figure and no alternative or free replacement is known to be available. Cheers. Gwen Gale 07:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Berlin map
Hi Angr! Your map of Berlin is of great value. May I suggest some improvements with the following specifics: Consistent horizontal naming of the Boroughs. Slighthly bigger letters and consistent typo (also; same space between the letters). !Wartenberg! instead of Berlin-Wartenburg. Correct borders of Gropiusstadt. Would be much appreciated. Lear 21 11:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, consistent horizontal naming of the boroughs isn't possible, because not all the boroughs are shaped the right way. Larger letters and consistent letter spacing are also not possible in every case. The borders of Gropiusstadt look fine when I compare it to Image:Berlin Neukoelln Gropiusstadt.png. But I will correct Wartenberg, and while I'm at it, I'll upload the SVG so that other people can more easily make other corrections themselves. —Angr 11:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It is the extra line in Gropiusstadt which doesnt belong there. May be you have time for a try with the 'horizontal' and 'bigger letter' issue. I can´t see the problem. To really distinct the Boroughs there are colored borders. The map in the article is now 420 px and the names are still not clearly readable. The improvements would be important. Lear 21 12:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The hairline going through Gropiusstadt has little pointers on each end; it's an attempt to show that the area just north of Gropiusstadt is part of Buckow. And there's just no way the image can be viewed at 420 px and still have all the labels legible. Some localities like Halensee, Hansaviertel, and Wilhelmsruh are so small that if their labels were legible at 420 px, the names would completely cover the portion of the map they belong to. This map can only work if readers click on it to see the full size. —Angr 12:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Its only the 12 names of the Boroughs which should be readable at first sight. It could be managed with overlapping the internal and external borders. Lear 21 12:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop deleting images imediately
Stop deleting free licensed images of the Berlin article. If your are in doubt of the status, send an e-mail to the representative. He will verify the status. Lear 21 19:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm only either deleting images that are already on Commons (and replacing them with the Commons version) or deleting images whose source clearly says they aren't free. —Angr 18:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The link is given. The e-mail as well. Stop it. The image was introduced after confirmation of free usage. There other images with the same status. Stop the deletion now. Lear 21 19:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The links of both the images I deleted provide the conditions of use at http://www.berlin.de/berlinbilder/nutzungsbedingungen/, which says "They may be downloaded free of charge for serious, non-commercial purposes" and "The photos may not be altered". Both of those conditions are unacceptable for Wikipedia's purposes, and make them eligible for speedy deletion under speedy criterion I3. —Angr 19:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop reducing the content! This is bureaucratic nonsense. The representative confirmed the usage under the Wikipedia policy. Lear 21 19:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You may consider it "bureaucratic nonsense", but Berlin will never be a featured article as long as it has images whose copyright status is unclear. —Angr 19:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, then this is obviously the end of the FA candidacy. The images are of higher value then the FA status. Improve the article (map for instance) rather than destroying it. Lear 21 19:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't be so melodramatic. The article has plenty of good images already whose copyright status is clear, and the text portion of any encyclopedia article is far more important than its images. —Angr 19:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The FA status is only relevant for one in thousands readers (hardcore Wikipedians). The deleted images were of great importance for the understanding. The introduction was justified. Bureaucracy has killed itself. Lear 21 20:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Undo Olympiastadion image change
Image:Olympiastadionberlin2005.JPG This is not the introduced image. It has been edited by a good reason. You messed up the visual content of the Berlin article several times now. Lear 21 20:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You can edit this one and upload your edits under the same name. (Just click "Upload a new version of this file" on the image description page.) There's no excuse for using low-resolution versions of free images. —Angr 20:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You are producing endless nonsense. You are wasting time of others with no reason. Lear 21 20:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Languages of the United States
Hello. I agree completely with the rationale for using the same name as in the census statistics. However, unless I'm mistaken, the Census bureau has itself added together the responses "Tagalog" and "Filipino", or else this has been done somewhere else along the way. Otherwise, it is difficult to make sense of the lack of responses "Filipino". Joeldl 05:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Filipino language is kind of an artificial construct; according to the article, "Many people assume that Filipino is essentially and practically the same language as Pilipino, the national language, at that time clearly based upon Tagalog, an ethnic language. Filipinos are more likely to ask one another if they speak 'Tagalog' rather than 'Filipino'." —Angr 05:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the last language in the list is Hungarian, which is ten times less frequent, the response "Filipino" would have to be ten times less frequent than "Tagalog". That doesn't seem likely. Anyway, it doesn't make a difference to hat goes in the article unless perhaps you are right and Filipino is found somewhere else, in which case it might have to be added to "Tagalog". Joeldl 19:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "ten times less frequent" is supposed to mean, but if it's true that "Filipino" exists primarily on paper and in the imagination of the Philippine government, and not so much in the hearts and minds of speakers, then it's not really surprising at all that very few people wrote it down. —Angr 19:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Ten times less frequent" was intended to mean "one tenth as frequent". Sorry for the misunderstanding. Joeldl 01:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Berlin
I have created a temporary page for WikiProject Berlin. If you are interested, you can sign up there. Kingjeff 17:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:ENLANG
Hi Angr,

Feel free to tell your friends, relatives, neighbors and passing strangers about WP:ENLANG. It could use some members... thanks! :-) Ling.Nut 03:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Speaker
According to the policy WP:BLP that you mentioned, "The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry".But its established that he is notable for having a rare form of drug resistant toburcolosus, and that he is the first man quarantined by the united states in 40 years, so its not just he was in the news.

Also, the policy says "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them".But there is no larger subject, it is all about him, he is not just a person with a small tie to a major event.

I don't know if your the one who speedy deleted the article the first time,but being an administrator I advice that if you disagree you atleast nominate it for regualar AFD since I established some notability and will recreate the article. Rodrigue 16:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I deleted it the first time because it failed to establish his notability. If you re-create the article, that will also fail to establish his notability, because he is completely nonnotable outside the context of the 2007 tuberculosis scare. Any information that needs to be given about him can be given there. —Angr 16:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks for fixing the IPA pronunciation in Sergey Korolyov
Hi, thanks for fixing the IPA pronunciation here. After trying to find some references for Carl Benz, I concluded that the best ones are in German. Could you check my translations of the titles and my annotation of the exlink to Das Automuseum Dr. Carl Benz in der alten Benz Fabrik? --Jtir 23:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Green Legs and Spam
Exquisitely funny. --Lambiam Talk 07:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:VoQS.png
reply & question:. – ishwar  (speak)  18:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection
I urging you that you must unprotect the Andrew Speaker page, because this is contraversial issue.Like I said, its not fair that your deleting and protecting a contraversial page that most people haven't even discussed yet, and I suggest you just nominate it for a normal AFD because perhaps other people will disagree with you.

And I did establish his notability.He has a rare form of drug resistant tuberculosis, and he is the first man quarantined by the United States since 1963.It is not just about him being on a plane and causing a stirr, his tuberculosis and qurantine makes him natable. Rodrigue 19:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The section at WP:BLP regarding people in the news who are known for only one incident is quite clear, and that section was quite recently called into action in the case of the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case. There was a separate page for Crystal Gail Mangum, but it got deleted and redirected to the page about the incident. There was a fuss, and a WP:DRV, and the result was clear: it stayed a redirect to the article about the incident. This case is no different. If you must, you can take it to WP:DRV, but I strongly doubt there will be a consensus to undelete it. —Angr 19:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I did make an argument on your page previously that disputed your claim that Andrew Speaker was in violation of WP:BLP, and I pointed out several key phrases of the section you refered to that it violated (User_talk:Angr).But if won't even try to reconsider your actions, then I will take those arguments to Deletion Review. Rodrigue 17:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said immediately above, you can take it to DRV if you want, but I doubt the result will be the one you want. —Angr 19:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Editing maps/pictures etc.
I was just wondering whether you could let me know how to add images to wikipedia and how to edit images. thanks.
 * Well first, you have to sign up for an account! As an anon, you can't upload images. For maps, the best thing is to create SVG files using a vector graphics editor like Inkscape (the one I use; it's free), Adobe Illustrator, CorelDRAW, or the like. Also, for maps, it's best to upload them to rather than at Wikipedia; that way, other Wikimedia projects can use them too. You'll need to register your user name at Wikipedia and Commons separately, though you can use the same username on both (unless the name you choose is already taken at one of them). —Angr 15:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Warren Fitzgerald (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 22:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek
I think I must warn you to take a second look at the debate for wich you deleted the image Image:StarTrekEnterprise Cast.jpg. All the reasons that were provided for deletion had been refuted as wrong interpretations of the current policies. The final decision should be based on the reasons provided, not in wich one makes longer or louder statements Perón 02:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It seemed to me that all the reasons that were provided for retention misinterpreted Wikipedia's policy on nonfree images, otherwise I wouldn't have deleted it. —Angr 04:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Since per IFD: Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 31#Image:StarTrekEnterprise Cast.jpg is not a Wikipedia policy, I hope you'll consider amending your closing to indicate which Wikipedia policy you feel was violated, as opposed to simply deleting with no reason listed. Probably a simple oversight on your part; no ill intent seen.  Thanks!  Jenolen    speak it!  06:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course deleting an image in line with an IFD discussion is policy. —Angr 15:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I was unclear. In your deletion, you give no indication as to which part of Wikipedia policy you feel has been violated.  That's all I'm saying; please amend your closing to indicate which policy you're deleting the image under.  It's pretty simple... Discussions are not official Wikipedia policy, as you well know.  And as an admin, I would think that you should always be as transparent as possible, especially on deletions such as these, which seem to reinforce your long-stated personal preference for the elimanation of these types of image.  But as an admin, you're, of course, following policy, not personal beliefs... so what's the policy?  Jenolen    speak it!  01:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there are of course the points that Abu badali and Howcheng made; in addition, it violates non-free content criteria 1 (the cast could also be illustrated with a gallery of free images of the actors), 2 (our use of the image competes directly with startrek.com's use of it), 8 (it does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot"), and possibly 5 as well (although 5 is worded so vaguely it's difficult to tell). It also conflicts with Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy, which requires that nonfree content be used only "to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works" (this image did none of that), and with Kat Walsh's statement on licensing policies, which says "There are some works, primarily historically important photographs and significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself. Because the inability to include these works limits scholarship and criticism, in many jurisdictions people may use such works under limited conditions without having license or permission." This photograph was not historically important or a significant modern artwork; the topic of the article where it was used is not hard to discuss without including the photograph; and excluding this photograph does not limit scholarship and criticism relating to the topic of the article. —Angr 05:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See, was that hard? Thanks for the insight...   Jenolen    speak it!  06:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:StarTrekEnterprise Cast.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jenolen   speak it!  10:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Help
Would you remake the UE ligature page? ᵫ|The page has been remade into a redirect. Thanks.Cameron Nedland 21:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The redirect was the result of the discussion at Articles for deletion/ᵫ. If you would like to write a new article about the ligature (one that says more than just "ᵫ is a ligature of u and e, it's found at Unicode U+1111" or whatever), just click on ᵫ, then click on it again where it says "Redirect from ᵫ", then click edit this page. —Angr 21:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's just it, I don't know anything about it and would like to know more about it. Do you any sites that might have info about it?  Thanks again.Cameron Nedland 06:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, I don't. And Googling for it didn't really give any useful information. I've only ever seen it used in Merriam-Webster dictionaries to represent [y] and . —Angr 11:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay then, I'll quit worrying about it then. Thanks a lot.Cameron Nedland 15:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians by language
In my opinion, that nomination stands little chance of success and should be closed per WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. If you feel that the categories should be deleted, please find some consensus (at least an initial consensus) on the village pump before nominating it for deletion. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Accusing me of WP:POINT comes very close to violating WP:NPA and certainly violates WP:AGF. As I have made very clear, these categories are not useful for anything encyclopedic. And since when do we have to find consensus before nominating something unencyclopedic for deletion? —Angr 21:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just reclosed the nomination, please don't reopen it, if you disagree, take it to DRV.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  21:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for violating WP:POINT, as you falsely accused me of doing. At least someone has. —Angr 21:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Angr, I don't think that the nomination was necessarily WP:POINT-y, but please consider this. The decision to retain or delete any user category should be based principally on two factors: usefulness and harmfulness. A lot of people consider the categories useful in terms of promoting inter-language efforts. In addition, the categories are not harmful. As I noted in my comment, speaking a language can be a political act in certain contexts (e.g., speaking Kurdish in the Turkish parliament), but it often is not. Declaring the ability to speak a language on Wikipedia doesn't constitute a political act, except in rare cases (actually writing comments in a language may be political, but that's a different issue). – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. These categories are encyclopedically useless and potentially harmful. —Angr 21:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Location maps
Would you consider dual-licensing your contributions to Location map and related templates under the cc-by 2.5 license so i could use them on the english wikinews? Happy editing. Bawolff 00:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. The maps I made are dual licensed. —Angr 04:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Affricates starting with k
Hey Angr, I'm working on my Conlang, and I have this idea for an "Anglic Consonant shift" that would kind of parallel the High German consonant shift. I have a p→ɸ/p→pɸ and t→ʃ/t→tʃ but I can't think of what to do with that damn k. I don't want to copy German and do k→x/kx Any ideas? Thanks! Cameron Nedland 21:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, given that affricates by definition have the same place of articulation in both the stop and the fricative component, there's not much else you can do. I suppose you could use a velar lateral affricate like Zulu has: . —Angr 23:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So a velar/uvular like kχ isn't possible? Because in pf, one is bilabial and one is labiodental, and their are tons of t-based affricates.  Sorry to bother you so much.Cameron Nedland 15:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose [kχ] is possible too. It's easy enough to make, at any rate. With the t-based affricates you have to remember (1) coronals are different from noncoronals in a lot of ways, (2) probably at least 95% of the world's attested affricates are coronals, (3) most pronunciations of don't actually start with an alveolar [t], but rather with a palato-alveolar stop that's at basically the same place of articulation as the . —Angr 17:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a ton man! If you want to come and look that's cool with me.  It's my first conlang, and I just want it to be realistic and cool.  Again, thanks for all your time and knowledge.Cameron Nedland 18:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, when it comes to conlangs, "realistic" and "cool" are usually opposing goals. —Angr 18:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...let me ask you this: do you think it's either?Cameron Nedland 18:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think it's realistic at all. And I'm not a particularly good judge of cool. —Angr 18:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What can I do to make it more realistic?Cameron Nedland 18:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Reduce the phoneme inventory. The huge number of both vowel and consonant phonemes is unlikely. Generally, languages with lots of vowels have few consonants, and vice versa; some languages have a moderate or low number of both, but a high number of both is really unlikely. As I mentioned above, non-coronal affricates are quite rare; I can't imagine a language having both /pf/ and as contrasting phonemes. (And keep in mind that despite the strong cultural and linguistic influence of High German on surrounding languages, no real-life language has borrowed /pf/ from German!) Having  contrast with both  and  is also unlikely, especially for a Germanic language. So is contrasting  and /f/. Basically, it looks like you've taken every quirky thing that any Germanic language has done, and shoved them all into one language. —Angr 18:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay I've reduced both, and "merged" all the sets you said except and /f/.  How about now?Cameron Nedland 18:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Better. I'm still skeptical of the contrast though. Where does it come from? I assume is from *hw while /f/ is from *f. And what about the contrast and  contrasts? Where do they come from? —Angr 19:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * comes from historical h in coda position after back vowels e.g. Ikh lache is 'I laugh'; where as  is a product of the "Anglic Consonant Shift" (specifically k→χ).   also comes from the "Anglic Consonant Shift" (p→ɸ), hw just became f.  I'm still thinking about how to make the  distinction, and  are short variants of  and .  Anything else?Cameron Nedland 19:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have gotten rid of /ʉː/ and /ɵ/. I cannot find a good reason to have them.  Would /ʁ/ as a dialectal or positional version of /ɹ/ be possible/reasonable?Cameron Nedland 19:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not if the point of the conlang is to remove French influence. As far as anyone can tell, the uvular R started in French and spread from there to other languages. —Angr 19:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So it's not a German thing originally? Aslo, now I've added a tentative chart with the Anglic Consonant Shift.Cameron Nedland 23:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have merged /ɸ/ and /f/, and I have changed /pɸ/ to /pf/. I have been thinking about the diphthongs and I think I'll have something vaguely similar to the the Great Vowel Shift; /uː/→/əʊ/ and /iː/→/əɪ/; /eːo/ from Old English becomes /iː/ somehow (don't have all the steps prepared).  I'm still working with the Uvular sounds, mostly trying how to represent them in the orthography.Cameron Nedland 03:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:HPOOP First Poster.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:HPOOP First Poster.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 06:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Request
Hi. I am making this request anonymously to avoid the appearance of taking sides (yet I choose to do so on your Talk page so that no accusations of "back room maneuvering" can be made). Would you reconsider the expiry of your block of JDG? As I think you now know, he is a longtime, valuable contributor. He can be volatile temperamentally, but we think his quality hard work over so many years has earned him a free teapot tempest or two. I am pretty confident that if you drop the block now, a few of us will be able to persuade him to let the whole thing go. Please don't feel as if I am making a demand. If you feel this really is the best course, that is your business. Thank you (a hopeful peacemaker).38.117.157.92 17:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree that "his quality hard work over so many years has earned him a free teapot tempest or two". On the contrary, precisely because he has been here so long he ought to know better than to pull a stunt like he did. I already said at WP:AN/I that I won't mind if another admin thinks the block ought to be shortened or lifted, but in my opinion he needs the time off to, as someone said on his talk page, think about whether this particular course of action is likely to help him achieve his goals. —Angr 21:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Based on this response from User:JDG, I'm going to go ahead and unblock him, as the issue that led to the block is hopefully resolved. If you have any concerns, please let me know. MastCell Talk 19:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine. —Angr 19:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ayla_new_art.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ayla_new_art.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to 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 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. ShakespeareFan00 08:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:1972 Custom Cruiser.jpg
Greetings. Back in March, you processed Image:1972 Custom Cruiser.jpg and tagged it as rk. I believe this was in error, so I listed it at WP:IFD. No offense. I thought I'd let you know. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 10:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Problem with tag on Image:Disgaeatvimage.jpg
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3ADisgaeatvimage.jpg&diff=140369001&oldid=130023229

You added a dated tag with the wrong date to Image:Disgaeatvimage.jpg. If you use dfu, the correct date will automatically be substituted. --Eastmain 07:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The image was tagged as disputed fair use on May 11, but the tag wasn't dated. I put the image into the earliest dated category that still exists, that for June 2. It would have been silly to use {{subst:dfu}}, since that would have put it in to an even later dated category yet! —Angr 17:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bojacksonhitandrun.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bojacksonhitandrun.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. Bleh999 17:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I just uploaded the low-res version. I've notified the actual uploader. —Angr 17:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

May you check: distantive "case"?
In this moment I am making one linguistic database and I am working now on grammatical cases. As it is usual, our data about rare things are very bad. In the Template:Grammatical cases there is a mentioning of "distantive case". However, the only clear' references which I found[1]][2] are mentioning "distantive" as a verb form (not noun form) in some dialects of Fula language. So, may you check is distantive strictly verb form or it may be a noun case, too? --millosh (talk (meta:)) 21:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(You should copy links into the browser, not to click on them.) --millosh (talk (meta:)) 21:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * [1] - http://books.google.com/books?id=sFd79vhd_n0C&pg=PA105&ots=bgaaJGSkKc&dq="distantive"&sig=5pVgSljss2PMp8TRUJJTtIBox8I#PPA105,M1
 * [2] - http://books.google.com/books?id=xTqz2_6rz7gC&pg=PA157&dq="distantive"&sig=EngfyqSs8fxPZCo1p1sItt8sc7c
 * I don't know. I've certainly never heard of it as a noun case. Googling "distantive case" produces only two conlangs that use it; Googling "distantitive case" (which is what the template has) just gets Wikipedia pages with that template on them, and mirrors of those page. I've commented it out of the template. —Angr 21:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AZCardinalslarge.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:AZCardinalslarge.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 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:BrundleStage6.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:BrundleStage6.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. 06:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)