User talk:Mato/Archive 7

I know you didn't request this...
I thought this would be helpful for you (even though you didn't request it). After reviewing your request for the account creator right, I have enabled the flag on your account. Keep in mind these things: If you no longer require the right, let me know, or ask any other administrator. Drop a note if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of the account creator right. Happy editing! -- DQ  (t)   (e)  21:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The account creator right removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24-hour period.
 * The account creator right is not a status symbol. If it remains unused, it is likely to be removed. Abuse of the account creator right will result in its removal by an administrator.
 * Thanks very much DQ - will certainly be helpful! Mato (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

ACC:66312
Mato, please remember to sign your custom closes, Thank you. Mlpearc  powwow  06:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I did sign it as far as I can see... Mato (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Nvrmnd. I must of miss it. I no longer have a copy :P.  Mlpearc   powwow  16:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem. Mato (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Request #67043
In a recent account request, I noticed that you copy pasted the range block information as part of your comment in the reply section. This is a technical breech of trust regarding the otherwise personal information, in particular the IP of the requester, because it is then published in plain view within the reply section, and in the irc channel when the bot re-posts your comments live. It is a better practice to append a generic response in the reply section, such as "Local range block in place". Thanks for considering this and if you have questions, I'll happily clarify further. Cheers - My76Strat (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your concern is that there may be someone in the IRC channel who is not an ACC Tool user and who could therefore connect an IP address to a username? Mato (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that is the gist of the concern. To clarify, I am passing it along to you as it was once imparted to me. I used to do the same thing because it seemed to make sense, but I have come to understand the subtle difference, as it relates to the things we are intrusted. You can also note that in zooming into a request, that information is not visible, as in a closed request. These are places where having it published in the reply section constitute a technical breech. Best - My76Strat (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It certainly seems sensible to me (in fact thinking about it now, it seems silly that the IRC channel is not in some way protected from unauthorised access, seeing as it is the intended place for the discussion of requests). From what you say about the fact that you used to do the same thing, you are presumably aware that there are several other tool users who also do this - it may be worth getting in touch with them and sending them a similar message if/when you get the chance. Thanks for the advice. Mato (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I do try to pass this along when I notice its occurrence. Once considered, it does actually make sense. My76Strat (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Reporting biased editing to Tamil Tigress
I want to report biased editing by 203.45.18.13 and 150.101.116.203.

Revision by 203.45.18.13 as of 20:01, 5 September 2011 included biased non neutral and potentially libelous language such as "fraudulently marketed", "put in context the fraudulent nature of the publisher.." Also the revision by 150.101.116.203 as of 10:55, 5 September 2011 also used the same libelious, biased words "fraudulently marketed" and used unsupported statements like " Actually the female author has never been a member of ....". These two revisions seem to have been made by the same person.

I also want to report 139.163.138.11 for vandalism. His revision as of 01:28, 6 September 2011 was not restricted to removing libelous language but used the above edit by 203.45.18.13 as an excuse to remove a lot of relevant, supported, verifiable information presented in a neutral manner.

I have reverted all the above. Am I in the correct place for reporting them?Gettingthere (talk) 07:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me deal with your points in turn. I agree with your summary of the edit by user 203.45.18.13. The IP belongs to a WiFi hotspot, so it would be illogical to warn that IP about their edits 16 hours later - you did the right thing in reverting these edits. I will warn the other IP (150.101.116.203) for their non-neutral edits.
 * The edit by 139.163.138.11, after examination, appears to be in good faith - it may have been that the rest of the material was removed accidentally. They removed libelous language and stated the reason for their edit on the article talk page. Looking at their contributions (by clicking on their IP), you can see that they have a history of removing defamatory material from that article, and makes me think (though I cannot be certain) that it is unlikely that they removed that information on purpose.
 * In the future, if you find a user making disruptive edits like these, you can warn them by leaving a warning template on their userpage. There is a list here of warning templates you can use. You should ensure you use them in the correct order, Level One first, followed by Level Two etc. You should also make sure you choose the correct category - for example, the categories "adding unsourced material" or "not adhering to neutral point of view" are often preferable over categories of "defamation", because they are more general and less specific.
 * In most cases, a user should be given a full set of warning templates (up to Level 4im) before being reported.
 * One extra piece of advice I would offer would be to carefully read through Sections 6 and 7 of this page. It explains what is vandalism and what isn't vandalism. It should therefore help you determine whether you can report users to WP:AIV after they have been given sufficient warnings, as AIV is for vandalism only.
 * I hope all this helps, sorry if it's a bit too much info all at once. Message me back if you have any questions. Mato (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Gettingthere (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

ACC:67143
ACC:67143 does not have a range block. The single IP has a Schoolblock and not normally deferred to CU's. The majority of the request coming from a school IP are AGF due to this may be the primary access for the requstor, the vandalism normally associated with a school is overlooked as the user requesting the account is assumed not to be the person making these edits. Notice the IP posted on this request XXX.XXX.XXX.XX, range blocks are posted as XXX.XXX.XXX.XX/XX the full IP being the start of the range and the /XX being the end and all sequential IP's in the middle is the range. Hope this clarifies Range blocks. Cheers, P.S. I've noticed the change in your comment posting, I wish all would follow suit. Mlpearc  powwow  14:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure how I missed that it was only a single IP, my bad! Thanks for pointing it out. Also yes, My76Strat pointed out the disadvantage of my previous method. Cheers. Mato (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Daniels Page
The title for the movie still in development is NOT Dumb and Dumbest: The Next Generation. It is, in fact, Dumb and Dumbest: The Rapist's Wit, which is based on a line from the original movie. You are free to double check this with Mr. Daniels personal assistant, Julie Black, at (removed), or you can contact his agent, Jim Flemming at (removed) , or you can even call Jeff Daniels himself at (removed) and hear it straight from him. These edits are accurate, and I ask you to stop reverting them back to an incorrect title.143.85.192.241 (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You need a reliable, published source to make your change. Please read RELIABLE. Mato (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I need help with editing of Tamil Tigress.

 * I have discussed these issues excessively on the talk page. The edit I'd like to preserve is my reverted revision


 * One editor Roscelese is telling me that my ref name=MR>Michael Roberts, Another Demidenko? Niromi de Soyza as a Tiger Fighter is a self published source and therefore including it is in violation of BLP/WP:SPS. I have reminded this editor of the exception to the self publish rule that “Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.” This editor tells me this exception does not stretch to cover Biographies of living persons BLP#SPS


 * I pointed out that a critical review of a published work(claiming to be a Memoir) done with the purpose of examining its factual accuracy against the time period in which it is set does not fall under BLP


 * Please note that this Self published source is not critical to my edit. An expanded and value added version of this self- published article has been published  a)ref name=GV>Michael Roberts, Forbidden Fruits: Niromi de Soyza’s “Tamil Tigress”, Noumi Kouri and Helen Demidenko? in a reputed citizen journalism blog forum in which content is subject to editorial control and discretion. b) Island Part 2 and Island Part 1 in a main stream print Newspaper


 * This editor wrongly claims that a) is a forum, in which anyone can publish. This misrepresentation of this particular source makes it hard for me to retain the required assumption of good faith about this editor. This raises in my mind a strong impression of lack of good faith


 * b) is a reference I have not yet included in any of my edits. I am reluctant to include b) and concede giving up a) and the self published source. I want to include all three because all three are in my opinion justified


 * Then in my edit I am saying that the authenticity of the Memoir status is challenged on ethno-graphic grounds (I give in line citation to show where it is so challenged) and on the grounds of a foundational error. As in line citation I give a)ref name=GV>Michael Roberts, Forbidden Fruits: Niromi de Soyza’s “Tamil Tigress”, Noumi Kouri and Helen Demidenko? as the place where it is challenged on the grounds of a foundational error. This editor insists on deleting the reference to foundational error along with a). I have not yet included b) Island Part 2 and Island Part 1.


 * Then in my edit I summarize the foundational error as described in a) and b)


 * I say in explanation that this foundational error consists of the Memoir author’s apparent ignorance (persisting to date) of the identity of her combat adversaries during the fighting tenure attributed to herself in her Memoir. I give inline citations to give where this apparent ignorance persisting to date is displayed.


 * Then I give some back ground infor. about the period in question to help determine who her combat adversaries actually were. All statements in this section are sourced with inline citations. This is an extensively, covered unique period characterized by a unique event.


 * My background infor concludes thus; When the LTTE was at war with the IPKF from early October, 1987 to end of 1989, not one of the three arms of the Sri Lankan forces participated in joint action with the IPKF or had any integrated command structure. That the Sri Lankan forces stayed clear of direct combat with the LTTE during this period, apart from the limited operations undertaken at sea by the Sri Lankan Navy, is a basic fact, that would have been known to contemporary Tiger fighters of all ranks.


 * Then I say that in contrast, Tamil Tigrss blurb (available online and given as an inline citation) says; (I quote the blurb within quotation marks) and Niromi says in her Throsby interview; (I quote excerpts from interview). Then I say, "Thus there is an attempted projection of Sri Lankan Forces into Niromi's fighting experiences, from which they should in reality have been absent. A possible motive for creating this imagined context is given by the author in the interview," (I quote an excerpt). This is in effect a summarisation of the 'foundational error' as described in the sources a) and b).


 * I give these quotations (blurb, interview) on my edit because they are given in my secondary source like that and in order to summarize the argument given in the secondary source clearly, and concisely I need to do so.


 * The editors Uthay6505, Rec006 and Roscelese classify 11) and 12) as original research.


 * I tell them no because X) they are referenced in my secondary source, and I am merely using them to summarize the foundational error argument given in the secondary source Y)even if hypothetically I did not have a secondary source, the statements I am making amount to straight forward, descriptive statements that any educated non specialist with access to the source, can verify are supported by these primary sources(blurb, interview excerpts).


 * The editor Roscelese even classifies 9), 10) as original research. I have said they are sourced verifiable statements and do no amount to original research. The editor does not listen and insists on deleting these citing BLP. This is another reason why I am finding it hard to sustain the good faith presumption about this editor.


 * Right now one editor Kevin has warned me about the 3R rule and reverted my edit using Twinkle.


 * What is the best thing to do.

Gettingthere (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel that these editors are disregarding the Common Sense rule and trying to turn Wikipedia into a rigid legalistic forum where it is possible to suppress relevant information based on technicalities. And badly argued technicalities at that. my reverted revision
 * I don't have the time to look into this right now, but based on a quick review a few things which might best benefit the article are:
 * Anything you write about a living person on Wikipedia must conform to the BLP guidelines, whatever the article.
 * No-ones edits here are vandalistic. Whilst you may think the edits by other users are disruptive (and they may think the same of yours), WP:3RR still applies and is very important. It shouldn't be broken, especially in a content dispute such as this.
 * I will contribute to the article's talk page once I've had a chance to read through everything, but remember that the content of Wikipedia articles is broadly based on community consensus. If Person A discusses their additions to the article (whether or not they are good edits or bad edits) on the article talk page, and three other people disagree with Person A's reasoning, it would be both unwise and unhelpful for Person A to continually re-insert the material because they believe they are right (whether or not they are right or wrong). Instead, if several editors express a justified objection to one's edits, it would be better to refrain from making the additions to the article until the community as a whole has had the chance to give their input. The best place to ask for a wider community input on the issue would be at the BLP noticeboard, however I notice that Roscelese has already posted there about the issue - this should help bring some other users to the article's talk page. Regards, Mato (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Mato, I have posted my non- self published sources on Reliable sources notice board and hope I get adequate feedback from the community, hopefully on the WP:OR issue as well. Gettingthere (talk) 09:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

(new section)
Dear Mato,

Powerto19 is my student, learning to edit and author in Wikipedia. We have ambassadors, and I am hovering over student assignments and modifications. Thank you for communicating with Powerto19. This student has tremendous potential to aid in overcoming the gender gap in Wikipedia. KSRolph (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Your students are welcome to contact me if they require any assistance. Regards. Mato (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

(Soft) redirect
Sorry for my change at German Wikibooks. The MediaWiki software disturbed me because the differences view showed the word REDIRECT, not the redirect icon. Nevertheless, your change is wrong because it links to English Wikibooks, not to English Wikipedia. I'll change any talk page if it seems useful. I'll change a user page, too, if it is necessary.

By the way, I don't understand why a user creates a user page in other wikis without publishing there. But if one thinks to be a Very Important Publisher, he may do so. -- Jürgen 12:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juetho (talk • contribs)
 * In case I make changes there in the future, it would be helpful for people to see where to contact me - whether or not I am considered a Very Important Publisher. Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems you have a userpage here at enwiki despite not frequently publishing here? Anyway, I have no doubt your edit was in good faith - I would just usually expect to be notified by anyone who makes such a change; at least that is standard procedure here at enwiki. Mato (talk) 08:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

New article
I would like to add a new article on Wikipedia, how would i go about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaxkuwa (talk • contribs) 18:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Here: your first article. 'Mlpearc Public' If you reply here, please leave a  on my talk. 18:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Mato (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

(new section)
Hello, I'm not doing the vandalism, someone else on my computer was. --84.19.47.226 (talk) 10:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As you do not have a Wikipedia account, I was not warning you personally - I was warning your computer. If anyone from your computer continues to vandalise you will be blocked. Mato (talk) 10:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

articles
how do I add articles???????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesse wade (talk • contribs) 14:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there. To create an article you can use the Article wizard. Make sure you read everything carefully! Thanks. Mato (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

(new section)
How am I vandalizing Wikipedia?

How am I vandalizing Wikipedia? 71.72.226.208 (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are editing disruptively, adding random trivia to articles, often in the lead section, where it has no place. You have been warned before about disruptive editing. Whilst you have the right to remove warnings from your user talk page, a history is preserved of the warnings you have been given. Please listen to them and think before you edit. Mato (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

ACC account request #70452
Hello Mato, sorry I couldn't reply to the message you left me on my talk page, I was celebrating Thanksgiving the whole day. First, I would like to thank you for notifying me on what I did wrong. I would rather get notified so I can prevent it from happening again than no one telling me what I did wrong. I'm still getting used to the ACC and accountcreator permissions. I've read the WP:ACCG and will reference it or go to the chat when I need help. I just subscribed to the mailing list also. Thank you again for your support and I will see you around. Happy editing! --   Luke      (Talk)   02:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, never hear much about Thanksgiving here in the UK! No worries and glad it's all sorted now. Regards. Mato (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

RFA thankspam
Thank you for your support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome - good luck! Mato (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Teletubbies
Can you please revert to the last sourced version? The same unsourced statement was added back and it should only be there if it is sourced. Also, the parameter "status" should be removed, per Template:Infobox television. 65.254.159.13 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Mato (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, for your efforts..
Hey Mato, I appreciate your efforts for saving the reliable contents on the Khanzada article.. Thanks again, Kunwar Khanzadah Jadon Rajput (talk) 09:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Mato (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

RE: User Talk - Page edit undo
Hi. I am Zaxn1234. You user talked my IP Address saying you undid the changes to my user page User:Zaxn1234

The reason I cleared the page is because the information was out of date.. I also fancied changing things around. Thank you for looking at my page however.

I will just change the information for now, to the correct details, then I will change the look of the page.

Thank You Zaxn1234 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxn1234 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Obviously I wasn't aware that it was you who was making the changes to your userpage, as it was just an IP address. Thanks for letting me know. Mato (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to shut down WP Geographic Coordinates & ban coordinates on wikipedia articles
This means you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Anne Macnaghten, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hungarian, Derek Simpson and The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Would You like to Help?
Hi, I am starting WikiProject Ravidassia. I would like to get help from people who are interested. You may sign up for the project on the []. McKinseies (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Miller Pipeline


Concerning your contribution, Miller Pipeline, a page move cannot be done by simply copying and pasting the contents of a page into a new location, as such a process does not transfer the page's edit history and therefore violates the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) license. As a violation of the page move process, Miller Pipeline needs to be temporarily deleted under the speedy deletion criteria so that may be properly moved in a way that will preserve its edit history. Miller Pipeline has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If not, please refrain from editing either or Miller Pipeline until the latter has been deleted according to Wikipedia's speedy criterion G6 (non-controversial housekeeping).

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.

96.29.108.51 (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC) Sorry if it was handled incorrectly. Currently "Miller Pipeline Corporation" is incorrect because the company is no longer a corporation; it is now a limited liability company that is simply referred to as "Miller Pipeline". Could you assist in correcting this?
 * No problem - I've tagged the page, so Miller Pipeline Corporation will be moved to Miller Pipeline as soon as an admin gets round to it. Regards. Mato (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. You appear to have logged out of your account! It is good practice to log in when editing to avoid any controversy. Mato (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for your support at my RfA, which was successful and nearly unanimous. Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem - good luck! Mato (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Handsworth Grammar School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to West Midlands and Handsworth


 * Alton College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Alton


 * Elmhurst School for Dance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to West Midlands


 * JFS (school) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Harrow


 * King Edward VI Handsworth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to West Midlands

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Your edit to Epsom College
I wonder if you noticed that following the citation for the enrolment gives this year's figure. I was imagining that this source was where you obtained the number of 725 instead of 726. I refreshed the citation and put a new access date on it. It would, surely, have been preferable to do that rather than simply changing the number and deleting the citation when you edited the article? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the source I used but you're quite right, I shouldn't have deleted the source without checking it and/or adding a new source - thanks for fixing it. I usually tend not to cite the enrolment figure as (if I've added it) it can be easily be verified by checking the DfE URN link above. Thanks. Mato (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Hivep.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Hivep.jpg, which you've sourced to Album cover - Harmony in Violence EP. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Hivlogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Hivlogo.jpg, which you've sourced to Logo of punk rock band Harmony in Violence. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

ConfirmAccount extension
Hey :). You're being contacted because you are involved in the ACC process, or participated in the original discussion in '08 about the ConfirmAccount extension. This is a note to let you know that we are seeking opinions on switching this extension on, effectively making the ACC process via the Toolserver redundant. You can read all the details here; I would be very grateful if people would indicate how they feel about the idea :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Andy Wright Bartok.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Andy Wright Bartok.jpg, has been listed at Files 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. Cloudbound (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

My RFA
Hi, I just wanted to leave a note saying thank you for partcipating in my RFA, and your comments will be taken on board and acted upon. Hopfully, I will be of a level you can support in a future RFA. Mr Little Irish (talk) © 13:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'm sure you will make a great admin in the future! Regards. Mato (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note
Thanks for your comments. I've responded there. - jc37 22:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)