User talk:Salvorix

License tagging for Image:Jcm2000 copy.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jcm2000 copy.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 04:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -- Tawker 05:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ned Lamont
Why are you replacing the image on the Ned Lamont page? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I will ask you for an explanation one last time. Next time, I will block you. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone else was on my account I'm sorry the problem has been solved my pass was changed - Sal

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Patrotic john kerry.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Patrotic john kerry.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 18:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. &mdash; Scientizzle 18:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And I've deleted Image:Minkoff copy.jpg because it was obviously taken from here. &mdash; Scientizzle 18:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the borderline notability of the subject, I'll delete the article per WP:BLP. &mdash; Scientizzle 02:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Although the article definatley had great potential unfortunatley issues involving real life (the vadals and such) I think that it was best for everyone that it was taken down. Dr. Minkoff did enjoy the article although it was him who told me about the initial birthday beeing incorrect. Salvorix (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Evolutionary Biology (textbook)
This page does nothing to establish the notability of the subject. It being a book doesn't make it notable - there are a lot of those. The name is also not very good because there are lots of textbooks named 'Evolutionary biology'. The one that comes to my mind is Evolutionary Biology by Douglas J. Futuyma, which doesn't have its own article. You basically need to establish why this text is significant, based on what other people (not the author or publishers) have said about it. In future please don't create new articles without citing some references, and in cases like this try to establish notability from the beginning as well.

The same goes for other articles you've started too, e.g. Biology Today: An Issues Approach. Some of these are at my university library, but that doesn't mean they'll be notable enough. Also, with headings, don't use capitals unless you need to (e.g. 'About the Book' should be 'About the book'; see my user page for similar advice) Richard001 (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of It's my time to shine album
A tag has been placed on It's my time to shine album requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. MuffledThud (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Biology Today: An Issues Approach for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Biology Today: An Issues Approach is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biology Today: An Issues Approach until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Solomon7968 (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)