User talk:Nicknack009/Archive3

You don't understand vandalism
Vandalism is putting false content into articles. Manopingo 22:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC) What is wrong with you? I am not blanking any pages. I am reverting vandalism, by Calgasus! He is putting false information into Wikipedian articles! Manopingo 23:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No wonder why the British conquered Ireland so easily! At every juncture, there was always a traitor. I hope you don't go down in history as a traitor too! Old IrelandManopingo 23:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I ashamed you have a map of Ireland on your user Page. I think you could be a traitor, because you are making anti-Gaelic edits. Sorry!Manopingo 23:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There was always a traitor in Irish history, and many Irish people died, I hope you are not the latest!Manopingo 23:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please - less of the innuendo and personal attacks. Focus on content, not the person - Alison ☺ 23:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Nicknack009 - I've asked Manopingo to hold off the revert war for a second and explain himself on the talk page. Can we all just step back and let him have his say until we come to some resolution on this? - Alison ☺ 00:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you think it'll do any good. As far as I can tell he's had his say pretty extensively, and totally incoherently, over the last few days, and I doubt he'll improve. --Nicknack009 00:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Nick here. We've been trying to talk to him for a while now and he's just getting more incoherent. I think he needs to be given a cooling-off block for the 3RR violations while it's investigated whether he's the reincarnation of perma-banned troll   ~ Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 00:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely no question about it, he is Bluegold. He's the only person in the world with any reason to think that Thomas Owen Clancy's American-ness is POV. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's pretty obvious that you're both right on this one and that I've wasted my time in this instant on WP:AGF. He's pretty-much out of control right now - Alison ☺ 01:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Celtic myth
I'm not gonna revert you're edits to that template, but I have to take issue with your contention that Goidel Glas and Scota are too minor. They are the central figures of medieval Scottish origin accounts ... for instance in Fordun, Bower, Wyntoun, etc; looking at some of the other figures - i.e. Taliesin - on the template, I find your contention difficult to believe. Am I missing some train of thought? Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just that if we're going to get into individual characters, the infobox is going to become enormous. Can you honestly say that Goidel Glas and Scota are more important in Gaelic mythological tradition than Partholon, Nemed, Nuada, Lugh, the Dagda, Boann, the Morrigan, Cuchulainn, Medb, Fionn, Cormac, Tuathal Teachtmar, Mongan, Niall of the Nine Hostages and Brian Boru, to name just a few off the top of my head? Better to stick to the broad categories, I would have thought. --Nicknack009 23:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Those guys are kind of covered by other topics (e.g. Cuchulainn with the Ulster Cycle), but yeah, I see your point. Much better to have a link to an article on Scottish origin myth, which doesn't really exist yet. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Or a general Gaelic origin myth, which is the one part of the Book of Invasions material that isn't properly covered yet, although I think that would fall under the Mythological Cycle heading. --Nicknack009 23:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That article really centres of one stream of the account of the Lebor Gabála Érenn, and gives no attention to different Irish and esp. Scottish versions (in fact you wouldn't even know they existed from that article), for which, ironically, there is lots of material. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not expand the article? I have to admit, I wasn't aware of any significant Scottish invasions material, and I'd be interested to know about it. --Nicknack009 09:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Your report to WP:AIV regarding Manopingo (talk • contribs)
I noticed earlier that you reported Manopingo (talk • contribs) to AIV regarding his/her disruptive reverts on Scota. An administrator removed your report because it was not obvious vandalism. I did notice, however, that Manopingo had violated the three revert rule. I moved your report to WP:AN/3RR and gave specific details including the diffs for the reverts by Manopingo. As a result of that report, Manopingo has been blocked for 24 hours and warned against future violations of the three revert rule. If you have any more problems with this user, please feel free to contact me for help. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 02:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Milesians
Thanks for recent work on this. I tidied up a little after you'd gone - any problems, just leave a message. There's some info in the first para that ought to have remained, as it comes from the fn.3 source, but it's not that important and I didn't want to unpick your good work. Your userpage is interesting. And I see you've been labelled a traitor! Must be doing something right.--Shtove 14:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The paragraph as it stood was hopelessly confused between what the Lebor Gabála actually says, and later interpretation. I didn't know what came from Carey and what didn't, so I thought it best to go back to first principles. If you want to put Carey's interpretations back in as interpretations, please do. Anyway, keep editing and maybe one day you'll get called a traitor too ;-) --Nicknack009 17:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you psychic? I received this on my talk page today . It's not on all fours with your prediction, but close enough. Out of interest it arose from my response  to this edit  .--Shtove 17:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh heh. Keep up the good work! Incidentally, you may be interested to know that the user who called me a traitor to Ireland is, judging by his user page, not actually Irish himself. --Nicknack009 00:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

George Best
He was a winger and scoring nine in 37 is pretty amazing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PanteraNegro (talk • contribs) 21:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Boadicca
Iterim means iterim... a work in progress... And if the intro was adequte and the article clear, I wouldn't be spending so much time on it. Am I to believe you or three professional historians and the editorial board of the History Channel? Your references are? // Fra nkB 16:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My references are those cited in the article. In particular, for the date of the revolt, see Kevin K. Carroll, "The Date of Boudicca's Revolt", Britannia 10, 1979. What's not clear about the intro? It's meant to be a summary, not a duplication of the entire article. The article as it stands is very thouroughly referenced, and you want to overturn that on the basis of watching a TV programme? --Nicknack009 17:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * yet another edit conflict


 * Just was written as if reader were already familiar with topic... a common pitfall. As these things go, the article was truly (and it's related major links too) in pretty good shape. I've seen much worse here these last few years. Intros are important to introduce both the topic and define the scope of the article. My version can be trimmed back some, as some stuff is repeated, but telling a thumbnail sketch aimed at the 9-14 year old is generally a good target, in my opinion. I usually let things sit for a few days to week before I pee in such again, letting someone else have a crack at my weak points, and then the blended result comes out pretty well. Also, as a firm believer in repetition being the mother of learning, I tend not to worry about minor redundancy, but whether the information is present and unambiguous in a clear context. Not like we have dead tree limitations on space.


 * Intriguingly, the upcoming rebroadcast synopsis indicates the date of the event covered in the two hour program is per a rising in 62 AD... I've set to record so I can parse the expert commentaries better--I'd tuned in late as it was, so missed the introduction by the pieces' coverage, which like our intros, sets the stage, and frequently reveals or indicates uncertainties.


 * It's on Comcast 2-4:00 EDST again, if you are able and care to track it. My big motivation was the commented out stuff you can see in the diff... Nero certainly had no time to consider withdrawing during the rebellion (so anachronistic). The experts did mention he briefly considered such after the event horrified by the loss of the ninth legion, but we're talking months later when faced with replacing a legion and other losses. Nor is Dio's 250k force credible by today's knowledge, particularly in light of the 80% forested terrain of the time. Logistic science says that's poppycock--Roman demonization to agrandize themselves... though it may be possible if you count camp followers and children. Hist chan puts the Roman forces a bit larger, iirc, and the 80-100k 'losses' in Londinium were and are simply ludicrous if it was evacuated. I'll let you know. Cheers // Fra nkB 17:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen a lot of TV documentaries about Boudica, and they all sensationalise, and treat conjecture as known fact. It doesn't take an "expert" to tell me that Nero briefly considered pulling out - I've read Suetonius, same as they have. --Nicknack009 17:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict 3-- we're on a roll together )
 * a TV programme... You must be another British contributor with that spelling.  I seem to end up collecting a lot of you as friends hereon, with my interests in matters historical. But how does the editorial board of a documentary production company take second place to say a reference in news or magazine coverage. At least the History Channel has experts illuminating the matters, and trys to present the uncertainties or controversies. All in all, they make for a decent way to check our materials. Talk to you later... I'm neither into reversions, nor getting into conflicts over materials, so just keep an open mind. I'm sure having read some written materials, you have a great command of the details, but neither should anyone here figure they've got the whole picture if other data comes to light. ttfn // Fra nkB 17:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also agree per the sensationalistic tendency... just like the print media overall. Which is why I record and test how they say what they say. Weighing one source against another is certainly part of our job as editors... I wasn't being critical, but thinking of that ten year old. later! // Fra nkB 17:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, in parting, the matter of the name shouldn't abandon the old materials in libraries... you'll note I went back to the 'new' unfamilar name in the second edit. Again, keeping in mind the target audience. If we were writing for a professional journal or college demographic, we'd be using the wrong vehicle. // Fra nkB 17:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm writing for accuracy, and have no intention of talking down to the readership. I didn't like that when I was ten. I have expanded the intro a bit, but we need to leave some details for the full article to fill in. The article is mainly based not on magazines or sensationalist popular literature, but on the Roman sources - Tacitus, Dio, Suetonius, all freely available on the internet if you want to check the article's accuracy - and on scholarly secondary literature, all of which I would rate ahead of a TV documentary, which, even if it's one of the few responsible ones, is a tertiary source based on the same primary and secondary sources. --Nicknack009 18:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Nicknack, I put a question on the Boudica discussion page concerning the title on the statue image. I noticed you have contributed significantly to that page. If the sculptor titled it "Boadiccea", should that not be the title in the caption? Any thoughts? Am I up a creek? Will changing it to "Boadiccea" just be confusing? It is, I assume, a public work and the artist's title may thus be irrelevant? Thanks for your thoughts. Mddietz 23:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

how are ya
alright thanks for the comment man,but just out of curosity what articles relating to celtic mythology do you know need creation and/or improvisation?Cú Culainn 10:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I doubt there are many that need creating, but I'm sure you'll find plenty that need improving. Try looking in Category:Celtic mythology stubs for articles that need work. --Nicknack009 11:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you help me with a source?
Hi Nicknack009! I am up to an embarrassing situation. Some time ago I dimly remembered that some Roman, living in the first century AD, has beautifully said that we don´t need a history of the first century BC, because we have Cicero's letters. I found that apt to add to the lead section justifying and stressing the importance of Cicero´s letters as an important part of his legacy. I wrote it down, deciding to find out who had said so from you or EALacey or somebody else (including books of course). Now an anonymous and eager person has removed it (which would be the right move, if the source of this sentence is not found), - his discussion about this is to be found at the Cicero talk page. Nicknack009, have you anywhere read this opinion/statement? Whom am I citing, or am I just plain wrong? Thanking you in advance. --Tellervo 13:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm not aware of that statement. I've had a look in the indexes of a few books on the period, but haven't found anything so far. If I do, I'll let you know. --Nicknack009 22:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No worry any longer about the missing source. You can stop searching, as the author has been found! EALacey tells us that it is from Cornelius Nepos's "Life of Atticus". But thank you for trying to solve this minor riddle! --Tellervo 10:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Orosius
Hello Nicknack009! Please check Talk:Orosius. Thank you! The Ogre 15:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Age of Bronze and Troilus
Hi, I've been trying to get Troilus to good article status. One of the elements I'm including is modern retellings of his story. I notice that you have contributed to Age of Bronze which seems to be going an interesting route on the Troilus-Cressida story. Are you reading the individual issues? If so, are you able to to provide more up-to-date information on where the story has reached. Cheers --Peter cohen 13:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There hasn't been much further development on the Troilus/Cressida front, except that Crsssida's family are facing hostility because of her father Calchas's treason, and Pandarus is encouraging her to string Troilus along for the sake of the protection of a son of Priam. I've updated the article to that effect. --Nicknack009 19:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I spotted the extract on the Age of Bronze website where Hector steps in and protects Cressida while Troilus just stares. Shanower is definitely following the Troilus as fool option of the post-Chaucerian tradition. I'm not a great comics fan but I am fascinated by how authors pick and choose which aspects of mythology to include and how to change them. Shanower is one of the maters of this. The decision to have Troilus in love with Cressida before the treason of Calchas is known and Hector has protected her changes the dynamics so much. It's a pity that the no original research rule prevents me from exploring this more in the article.--Peter cohen 20:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Troilus has new reached GA status. Thanks for answering my call for help on this aspect.--Peter cohen 13:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Pomponia Graecina
Thank you for fixing and editing the article. It is good that you have checked the sources regarding her. Anriz 13/6/07


 * Thanks, but it still lacks a reference to show that Pomponius Graecinus was married to Asinia Pollionis, so I've put the fact tag back. --Nicknack009 10:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Project Arthur
Hey! Just noticed your work on King Arthur-related articles and wanted to invite you to join WikiProject King Arthur. Wrad 03:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:2000AD163.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:2000AD163.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 ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  03:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:2000AD336.jpg
I have tagged Image:2000AD336.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. Videmus Omnia Talk  03:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:2000AD85.jpg
I have tagged Image:2000AD85.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. Videmus Omnia Talk  03:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:2000AD163.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:2000AD163.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 after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  00:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much! --Nicknack009 23:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:2000AD336.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:2000AD336.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. Phil Sandifer 02:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The development of the artist's style is not "original research", but is referenced from the four works cited. I have removed the disputed tag from the image and the (entirely spurious) "unreferenced" tag from the article. --Nicknack009 08:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

High Kings of Ireland - question
I was going through some of the articles that were part of WikiProject Short article clean-up, a project is for adding references to articles 1–5 sentences in length. I was trying to find a reference for Adamair, but couldn't. I am unsure whether any information on him exists on the internet since 90% of Google's results for "adamair" are for the airline. Since you created the article, do you remember what source you used? If you do, could you give me the title of the book or the website's url? Thanks,  Psych  less   01:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The main one is Book 5 of Lebor Gabála Érenn, the translation of which is still in copyright and therefore not online. I've given a proper cite to that, MacKillop and the DIL, and linked to the relevant passages in Keating and the Four Masters, which are online. Hope that satisfies. --Nicknack009 09:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks great. The other articles on High Kings should probably have references as well, so if I ever get those sources I will add them. Thanks,  Psych  less   20:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've already done some of them - for example Fachtna Fáthach and Eochu Feidlech - and I'll do more as I go. --Nicknack009 07:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I had thought to use Kings of Ireland for historical kings, starting from the lists that Frank Byrne uses in Irish Kings and High Kings, i.e. from Niall onwards. That way, the more legendary kings could go on Legendary Kings of Ireland. Could easily rename Kings of Ireland to Historical Kings of Ireland, or whatever, if you think that would be better. Now, the real question is "how do I get the silly thing to display collapsed by default"? Time to get my thinking hat on! Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Dux Bellorum
"'article is factually inaccurate & not supported by its one reference'"

What do you mean by that? In what way is it inaccurate and how can you say that it is not supported by the source? The source claims that Arthur was Dux Bellorum. That is also what the stub said. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * But it doesn't say that "Dux Bellorum" was a title bestowed by Roman emperors, because it it wasn't. "Dux" was a Roman title. "Dux bellorum" is just a phrase. --Nicknack009 21:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * From the little I read, it's disputed whether it was a Roman title or not; that's the reason why I left the tag remain in the article. Well, it was a two-line stub, so it doesn't affect the encyclopedia and I doubt the article could've been expanded, so no harm done. --Thus Spake Anittas 01:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Lamhfionn
Do you know anything about Lamhfionn? If so, there a rather sad article needs your help! There's nothing in MacKillop's dictionary, which makes we wonder... Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Boudica Statue
Nicknack, I put a question on the Boudica discussion page concerning the title on the statue image. I noticed you have contributed significantly to that page. If the sculptor titled it "Boadiccea", should that not be the title in the caption? Any thoughts? Am I up a creek? Will changing it to "Boadiccea" just be confusing? It is, I assume, a public work and the artist's title may thus be irrelevant? Thanks for your thoughts. Mddietz (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The last I looked the caption was just a description of the statue, but someone does seem to have taken "Boudica and Her Daughters" to be the official title of the work. I don't know if it has an official title, but if it does that's not it. I've altered the caption to a description, pending the actual title being found. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Your change makes sense to me.  Mddietz (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fótla & Fódla
I am VERY surprised that one such as you who is always trawling through the fairy glens of the isle of Gwicipedi has not yet noticed that we have, not one, not a triad but a COUPLE of articles on the earth-fairy, Fodla, one called Fótla, the other Fódla. Why on earth haven't you yet got round to merging them? What on earth have you been up to? Tut Tut!! SexyEnglishGayLad —Preceding comment was added at 02:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Merged to Fódla. -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 08:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Kathryn. Most remiss of me, I agree. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Conn
Looking good! And the http://www.yorku.ca/inpar/ stuff is interesting. Are you meaning to add historians humming and hawing? There's a fair bit of that in Frank Byrne's book, and some in Charles-Edwards's Early Medieval Ireland. Then there's also the best part of a page on Conn in MacKillop's mythological dictionary. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm just working from the sources I have/can find. If I find some interesting "historians huming and hawing" I'll be sure to add it. I'm sure O'Rahilly'll have something to say about him, but that'll probably turn out to be "he was obviously a god", and since he says that about everyone I'm not sure it'd be instructive to include it. He might have some interesting genealogical stuff. Otherwise, I'm mostly interested in the legends, and I'm happy to leave the history to others. --Nicknack009 00:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Bretha Nemed Déidenach
Hi there. Was impressed with the work you and your fellow editors did at Early Irish law; had no idea there was anything so comprehensive these days. Added a wee link on the above, which I hope meets with your approval. Cheers! Fergananim (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S., would love some feedback on Leabhar na nGenealach. Fergananim (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Greece
Perhaps you might be familiar with ancient Greece and/or ancient music. I am trying to add a Music section to the article Sappho, however another editor will not allow any part I have added even though it is a large part of her life. I have many excellent references to show what I said - which is just a small section with just the basics. Could you look over the edits I did to see what it would take to add such a section. At this point in time, nothing is allowed. A debate is on the Talk page of the article. Thanks.--Doug talk 20:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Sappho is way out of my area of expertise. You might find sympathetic editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Alec.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Alec.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. βcommand 22:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)