User talk:Pi07971

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Frazer.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Frazer.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. Retropunk (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please realize you're still using the incorrect template, and the image may be deleted per WP:CSD Retropunk (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Frazer.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Frazer.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of William Lawford (actor)


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on William Lawford (actor) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Largoplazo (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Please stop changing sourced text as well as adding your own opinion
The website that was used for the source before I just changed it clearly had the translation as "In the Name of God the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. This cross Houelt (PN) prepared for the soul of Res (PN) his father." Why you claimed otherwise I can't understand. You were obviously trying to translate the Latin yourself which just doesn't work, we use sources and those disagree. The new source I added is an academic one and should I hope make it clear to you that there are a range of readings (shame there aren't as many translations). You also added original research telling readers what they should note (that's your opinion, we don't add our opinions to articles) and we certainly don't take sides when there are differing translations. If you want to add more, please use the talk page to discuss it first. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Adding unsourced material, NPOV
The reading you added doesn't seem to have been in the source, so I've replaced it with one that is. You're also violating WP:NPOV by suggesting there is only one reading and one translation. The source gives multiple readings and several different translations. Fuller reply on my talk page, but this dispute belongs on the article talk page really. Doug Weller talk 19:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)