User talk:SmartM&M

February 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Frickative 15:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

DaBrain930
Hi. I'm really all very new at this so I apologize for the mistake. I don't know exactly if this is the correct way to communicate back but if isn't, I'm sure one of you will let me know. I'm available through AIM with the same user name, so if you're ever on, please feel free to IM me.

In regard to your question, yes I'd like to help. I just did some minor changes to everyone's infobox in terms of occupation and title. For example, I moved Chief Resident from Bailey's occupation to title, considering her actual occupation is a general surgeon, much like Chief of Surgery for Webber. Other things I noticed was Hunt didn't have a title when his doctor's coat has post-nominal titles of MD and FACS. I added an Arizona Robbins page, and yes it is very bare since I'm still new to all these and I didn't have alot of information to go by.

Anyway I'm looking forward to this.

--Dabrain930 (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Grey's Anatomy WikiProject
Hey, I was wondering what you thought of us starting a Grey's Anatomy WikiProject? It would really just be a place to centralise discussion on improving the articles, and somewhere to refer other interested editors to, but I think it might come in handy. If you think it's a good idea, just let me know and I'll put one together! :) Frickative  14:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume I left the above message just after you went offline, so I went ahead and made one :) It's here if you want to take a look! Frickative  18:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I'd be happy to join. I'm excited about this as well. Dabrain930 (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Hermione Granger.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Hermione Granger.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Grey's Anatomy
Not to try and steal you away from wikipedia or anything but just a heads up on a website I'm a b'crat on, the greys anatomy wiki. In case you don't know what a wiki is, its basically an encyclopedia (in this case its on greys anatomy). I see that you're interested in GA and we're looking for new editors so please check it out!-2Anthony4 (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Smallvile character infoboxes
I've reverted the change in infobox to the Smallville character pages. For one, I cannot stand those boxes. They are based on a set formula, which means you cannot change/alter them without altering the primary coding (which in effect alters every character page that uses that box). Secondly, per WP:WAF, infoboxes should contain only the most important info needed to understand the character. Who they had a relationship with doesn't help you understand them, because unless you've read the article you won't know who these people are. Occupation may or may not help you understand, depending on the job, but in Clark's case he is not a reporter - at least not yet. He's a copy boy, who has written a few articles for the Daily Planet (this was stated a few times during the past season). Also, fictional characters don't have "final appearances" even when they've been killed off. Being fictional means they never actually die. The only important appearance is the first appearance. 21:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Polite? What does that have to do with anything? Did I not politely come here and explain why I reverted your changes? I was not required to do that. Infoboxes are not for what's "fun", and "useful" is debatable. I also have never assumed you were trying to vandalize pages, or mess with my work. It's not about what's "mine" or "yours", I don't own anything, it's about the manner in which you went about your editing. You're getting very defensive over this for no apparent reason that I can find. You made a bold edit, but the first problem was that it was a mass edit to a lot of pages and you didn't consult on the talk pages. You just did it. I reverted those changes for several reasons, which I outlined just above. I gave you reasons both from an encyclopedic standpoint and from a personal standpoint. Personally, I despise those templates (I despise just about all of Wiki's templates) because they are set formulas that you cannot change individually. If there is specific information you think is relevant to understanding a character, that is a completely different matter - you don't need the template for that. The other reasons for reverting was because of the mass changes, and because a good portion of the information was irrelevant and a bit fanish (pardon the term, but it's the most accurate). That type of stuff is not for an infobox. Per WP:WAF, only stuff necessary to understand the character should be there - who they dated is typically not one of those.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I personally dispise those particular templates because of their lack of versitility. For instance, I needed to widen the Clark infobo so things wouldn't be so cluttered. I can do that with the current infobox. That cannot be done with a template. I also like the color of the current infobox, and not the grayed out one you wanted. The only thing positive that I can find about the template is the sectioning off of certain information, which technically could be done with the current box if need be (and I have tested it out on the Clark page if you want to see) - but it my opinion that the lack of options available to it make it far less useful than the current infobox. My reverting of the specific information found inside of those infoboxes you added is based on the guidelines that govern them. I never said there was a policy or guideline that says you cannot add them. But per Bold-Revert-Discuss, you were bold, you were reverted, and if you feel that passionately about it then you need to start a discussion. You mass added something without consulting with any of the primary contributes to any of the articles, and I'm not the only person that contributes (though I might do the majority of the contributions).


 * To address specific people in the infobox: Lana's parents are only mentioned in passing as something the character is dealing with. They don't have articles or sections in another article, they're both covered either in her article (probably very minimally, considering that they were only even semi important in the first few episodes and are largely forgotten after that, with exception to a couple of eps in later seasons). Henry Small, her real father, is completely irrelevant. It's a 3 episode arc that is never mentioned again. The same goes with Lucas and Julian Luthor. Not essential to understanding who Lex Luthor is, because Lucas isn't even mentioned on the page (one episode wonder), and Julian is a small arc in season 7. As far as romantic relationships go, unless you understand the dynamic it's pointless. Especially if you're trying to include short term relationships. You're attributing undue weight to a single term, when so much more is required to understand the relationship. If I said, he was in a relationship with Lana Lang, that means just about nothing. The section that details that relationship is what is important. If he was married to Lana, or Lois, then that could be included in "Significant relatives", but he wasn't. Notice how Superman doesn't have "Significant Relatives" or "Romantic Relationships". He has "Alter ego", "Place of Origin", "Team affiliations", "Notable aliases" and "Abilities". - You can either classify "Red-Blue Blur" as "Alter ego" or "Notable aliases". "Place of Origin" is covered by "Species"...but we could adjust the name of the section. We could add "Team affliations" - since we have Justice League (Smallville), and he's listed there. That covers everything the comic character covers, and that character has been around for 70 years with far more important relationships in his fictional life. The reason they don't typically list those types of things is because you cannot really explain the significance of such people by merely listing their name.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand why you want the relationships, but I think the reason why they aren't included in other infoboxes (at least for featured article characters that have goen through the peer review process...like Jason Voorhees, Michael Myers (Halloween), Superman, Batman, Padme Amidala, etc.) is because the infobox needs basic information, and trying to attribute a significance to another person isn't near impossible to do simply listing their names.


 * As for some changes. Are you proposing simply removing the colons (":")? If so, I'm generally fine with that. They are not necessary. The images are standard size (250px). We have to specify a size because they'd otherwise be presented in their largest capacity. As for the width of the infobox, 25em is the standard width of all infoboxes, even the templated ones. Sometimes, in the past, I've adjusted it to be a couple of points wider just so one word isn't forced to the line below (in order to keep the box neat), but generally they are all 25 em (I dont' know what "em" stands for, so if you were wondering yourself I, unfortunately, cannot provide that answer. I just know it's for the width of the box). Do you like/agree with the sectioning of the infobox, as was done with Clark?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Everyone is sectioned off in a similar fashion to the template now. I removed the colons from all. I did remove the relatives (again, because of the lack of context), but I've added "Affiliations" to Clark, Lois, and Chloe...as well as "Aliases/Alter-Ego" to Clark and Chloe.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not watch those shows, so I won't be good for finding stuff related specifically to the show. Google News is probably the best bet, as Google Web will primarily give you unreliable sources, like fansite. I would search there using key terms like that character's name and the show name (put them in quotation marks so that Google knows you just want to find those specific names). For instance, Here is one for Meredith, but those are 19 sources for the past month. If you click "all dates" you'll get more, but you'll most likely get a lot of unrelated stuff. Here is a Google Scholar search for the same character. Google Scholar is for peer reviewed journals (highly good sources for character analysis), but a lot of the times characters or shows are mentioned in passing (e.g., ...symbolism of American culture, for instance characters like "Meredith Grey" or "Buffy Summers"....), and then they never go into detail. Sometimes you can use the one liners, and sometimes they are just pointless comments that don't help at all.


 * If either show has a companion book (like Smallville does), then that is typically good for character development stuff. As far as the structure goes, just visit WP:MOSTV. I don't know how much help I can be with finding info on these characters, because I'm not sure where to look outside of the basic Google search, but I assisted on Buffy Summers, Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) and Jack Harkness, acting more as a guide and doing some copy editing where I saw it was needed. I can do that if you want. Anything major I typically just leave a message on the article talk page because I'm not familiar with the characters enough to trust my instinct to change the page.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Formatting of One Tree Hill (TV series) article
I like most of the changes you made to the article, since it resembles the featured article Lost (TV series) in formatting, but I changed and or tweaked a few of the minor changes. For one, the lead was too long and went into detail that should ideally not be in the lead (though some leads are just as long, but there are better reasons for those). The lead is supposed to simply summarize the article after all. The detail about the creation of the show should be in the Production section, which is where I put it, not the lead. I am also thinking about putting the Series timeline section in the Production section, instead of where you put it (as part of the Plot section). It seems to be just as relevant to the creation of the series, given the way he designed the timeline.

Also, do we really need a guest artists section in the article? I was tempted to remove it, and still am, since we already have the Music section (which notes guest stars, who are usually of a musical nature within the series). I would leave a bit of the relevant information in, but that messy bullet-point list noting each and every guest artist is not appealing Wikipedia-wise. On the other hand, neither is linking and naming as many guest stars as we do in the Music section. I would not think that all the guest stars need to be named. Flyer22 (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As I stated on my talk page...for some time, yeah, no one really cared about taking care of the One Tree Hill article, except for Russell29 (and probably a few people before him). I came along, and then it was me and Russell29. Some time back in 2008, the article did not look too differently than the way you recently formatted it (as seen in that edit by an IP). I know that an editor came along and cleaned the article up, and the look in that link may have been the result of that, and that a different editor later cut the plot down (which was one of the best things for the article). Right now, there are about four editors taking care of that article, five with you included.


 * I will go ahead and make the two changes to the article I said I was thinking of making to it. Flyer22 (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Gossip Girl
Sorry I didn't reply earlier i've only just checked my talk page. The gossip girl page is a complete mess. It defiantly needs a huge change. I would be happy to team up with you. My next changes will be to create a season two article as I need to finish what I started. Your edits so far have greatly improved the article. I too tried to change the template and it got changed straight away, which was frustrating since obviously ours were following wikipedia's standards and the current one doesn't. Keep up the good work and I will start on a season two article SmallHill (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Gossip Girl - five regulars from the 1 season.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Gossip Girl - five regulars from the 1 season.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Gossip Girl Cast (season 1).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Gossip Girl Cast (season 1).jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Gossip Girl Season 2 Cast.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Gossip Girl Season 2 Cast.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 05:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

TVD season 1
Good idea. I will take a look and let you know. Jayy008 (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I like that! You seen good at writing things like that so will you expand the story lines part? Jayy008 (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's fine. See you there! Jayy008 (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Grey's Anatomy Season Five Cast.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Grey's Anatomy Season Five Cast.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Ellen Parsons.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Ellen Parsons.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Armbrust Talk  Contribs  17:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dr. Meredith Grey.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Dr. Meredith Grey.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Patty_Hewes.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Patty_Hewes.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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Closedmouth (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dr. Derek Shepherd.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Dr. Derek Shepherd.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 03:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Grey's Anatomy 0101.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Grey's Anatomy 0101.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Dr. George O'Malley.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Dr. George O'Malley.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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Game of Thrones (season 2), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Caucasian, Skins and Showtime (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) 11:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dr. Cristina Yang.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Dr. Cristina Yang.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dr. Richard Webber.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Dr. Richard Webber.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TVD cast.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:TVD cast.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Copying licensed material requires attribution
Hi. I see in a recent addition to Human rights in North Macedonia you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)