User talk:Rugby471/Archives/2007/May

User Category for Discussion
 A category created by you or to which you have significantly contributed is being considered for deletion, rename, move or merge in accordance with Wikipedia's Categories for Discussion policies. This does not mean that any of the userpages in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the User categories for discussion page. VegaDark 03:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC) I've also nominated Category:Wikipedians Who Dual Boot for deletion or merging. VegaDark (talk) 06:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User categories
Just so you know, the naming convetions for user categories do not have every word in the title capitalized, as you have created them with. Only the first letter of the first word, and anything else that would normally be capitalized should be capitalized. I would make a properly capitalized version of each category you created, and then request the old versions for speedy delete. VegaDark 01:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Photoshop boxes
That's fine dude, you made them better basically but kept the same look and words as I did. As far as I'm concerned, you can delete the other ones, no need to get official lol. Eridani 21:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You'll need to tfd those userboxes. People need to be aware that a template they use is up for deletion. -- John Reaves (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see now, just have the creator tag with db-userreq if they want. Although, it might be easier on everyone to just redirect them to the new one. -- John Reaves (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Commercial use of Image:Looking-Upstream.jpg
is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission for use on Wikipedia only" which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3). --Android Mouse Bot 2 11:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of Template:User Photoshop-4 small
I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Template:User Photoshop-4 small. I do not think that Template:User Photoshop-4 small fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because That a template is obselete is not a reason for speedy delte -- it not infrequently happens at TfD that it turns out not to be as obselte as thought. So take this to TfD or try redirecting it if that seems appropriate, often a good thing to do with obselete tempaltes that have been replaced, if the usage matches. I request that you consider not re-tagging Template:User Photoshop-4 small for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, you can't always tell if a template is beign used with the what links here function, because if people use subst their uses won't show up that way. In any case, even if no one is using it, tempaltes that are obselte should go through TfD. If no one is using it or wants to, a few people will agree with you, nobody else will say anything, and in a few days it will be gone. But did you consider converting it to a redirect? That is often a good idea, and doesn't need any approval, nor an admin. DES (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought from the way you were acting thst you were more experienced in dealing with templates. TfD is Templates for Deletion. It is where people who think that tempaltes should be deleted can nominate them for deeltion, a discussion happens, and if there is consensus that the template should be deleted, it is. It is the tempalte version of Articles for Deletion, often called AfD. There is a similar discussiuon forum for categories, and for the special template/category paird known as stub types. At one point there was a special one just for user boxes (UfD) but it was merged into TfD long ago, if I recall correctly. Collectively all these deeltion discussion fora are sometimes called XfD. They are different from speedy deletion in that there is a discussion and an attempt to reach consensus in all the XfD fora. There is also Deletion Review, often called DRV, that reviews claims that a deletion dicision has been handled improperly. DES (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:G road.jpg
Hello, I am concerned about Image:G road.jpg. Saying something is "copyright free" isn't really licensing information. Who is the original copyright holder? Have they released it under a free license? Have they released it into the public domain? Do you have evidence of this? Everything is copyrighted until the copyright holder releases it explicitly. I added PD-release for now - if this is incorrect, or if you have more information, please add it. If you can't find information on who released the copyright to this image, it may be deleted. Thanks! --Strangerer (Talk) 18:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)