User talk:Tabercil/archive5

Enrique A Pollack \ Henry Pollack
Could you please review my new article on this subject and support its inclusion.. I have re-written it and added additional sources. Thanks Callelinea 03:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Tawny Cypress
Hey, you removed the picture of Tawny Cypress as Simone Deveaux from her article citing fair use, but the images tag states:

It is believed that the use of some images of promotional material to illustrate:

* the person(s), product, event, or subject in question * where the image is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it   * on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

As the image is being used on the article of the person, and there is no free equivalent (as stated in WP:FU), I believe fair use applies and it is perfectly justifiable to use the promotional picture in lieu. Perhaps an accord can be reached to replace the image? -- User: (talk • contribs • count ) 21:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well that image is perfectly usable to illustrate an article on Simone Deveaux. But the same image is not usable to illustrate an article on Tawny. I specifically point you to clause one of the fair use policy:


 * "1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." (emphasis mine)


 * And clause eight of the unacceptable use section:


 * "8. An image of a living person that merely shows what s/he looks like. The rationale is that this is potentially replaceable with a freshly produced free photograph."


 * The absense of a free-use image does not give a free pass to having a copyrighted image on this page. Tabercil 21:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:RWpedro.jpg
Hi, do you know who the copyright holder of Image:RWpedro.jpg is? Additionally, where did they (the copyright holder) release this image as a promotional image. Thanks, Iamunknown 05:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No idea. All I know is where I found the image originally: here. I suspect (but can't prove) they took it from wikipedia, who probably took it originally from MTV's web site back when the show had first aired. What I do know is that a fair chunk of WP:FU doesn't apply as Pedro's dead. Tabercil 11:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiana Lynn and Squirting
Hi Tabercil, I agree that there is a link to "female ejaculation". However, the article on Tiana Lynn reads like an advertisement for her supposed skill of real squirting while obviously all she does (quite impressively) is pushing a large amount of water out of her bladder. I like Tiana very much because of her dramatic talent, her dedication and the fact that she seems to have fun, but I think the wikipedia user deserves correct information about what she really does. Bernie --82.135.90.40 21:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No... that's what you allege she's doing. And that allegation of what squirting "really is" belongs elsewhere, on the page about Female ejaculation and not on Tiana's page. If you have information from a reliable source that what Tiana in particular is not squirting, then you can add it. Tabercil 22:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Cailey Taylor 408994 850927.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Cailey Taylor 408994 850927.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. BetacommandBot 14:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

About Robbie Williams's Main Picture
One thing, I don't understand why you always remove my Robbie Williams' photo... according to you, it's better if I leave in the article that photo uploaded on Wikimedia Commons because it's not copyrighted, but I think that article need an other image of the singer... where he looks normally and not where he's making a live appareance... like mine. Juliuscaesar100-44 17:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

photos for USS McFaul (DDG-74)
Thanks for noticing the problem with the USS McFaul (DDG-74) photo. I agree that we don't need to keep the image with the uncertain source when better-sourced images are available. Please see Image:USS McFaul (DDG-74) CIC.jpg and Image:USS McFaul (DDG-74).jpg for two additional U.S. Navy photos of the USS McFaul that you may want to add to the USS McFaul (DDG-74) article. --Eastmain 18:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Angelica Sin
Unfortunately a block wouldn't be of much help in this case since it's a dynamic IP -- well it's possible to do a range block on the ISP but there'd need to be a lot more abuse before I'd consider that as an option. Yonatan talk 02:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Brittany Andrews
What's your opinion of the recent removal of material regarding her opinion of the results of her breast enlargement? What do you think of these claims that lukeisback is not a reliable source? I asked the question of the editor who removed the material and of the OTRS rep, but got no response... Valrith 17:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Midori
About a month ago you asked if i could locate a reference to Midori being Jody Watley's sister.. well i found it: Blender 41, October 2005, p58. The full quote is on Midori's talk page. Es-won 21:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Insatiable DVD cover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Insatiable DVD cover.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. BetacommandBot 06:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Amy Ried
I've nominated Amy Ried, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Amy Ried satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Amy Ried and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Amy Ried during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Jimmi Hugh 17:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Number 9 web site in the world
Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-05-28/News_and_notes. It's still there I remember when I first checked (must have been a year ago) it was #12 or so... :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Shakira POV
Whether the opening sentence should include awards such has "Grammy winning artist" has been discussed in several other biographies such as Christina Aguilera and Kanye West and consensus was that it's not NPOV to start the opening sentence with "award winning". All admins I've talked to about this issue say it's not NPOV to begin the first sentence with an award and that it should simply state who or what the subject is. Winning awards is something Shakira has done, but it's not who she is. The awards can of course be included later in the lead, but not in the opening sentence. Although it is true, she's won an award, starting off with "Grammy award winning" is trying to cast her in a positive light and is bias. You won't find a print encyclopedia starting off like that. Spellcast 00:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Mmmmmm. This irritating creature has done the same to a page I'm interested in, and I've had exactly the same reaction as you. Having read what they've written here, I can see their POV, but I can't make up my mind what I think of it, or whether their POV is a NPOV. On the one hand, it is simply a fact that Shakira has won a Grammy award, just like it's a fact she is a female singer, and therefore it is NPOV. On the other hand, there is some merit in the statement Spellcast makes about "casting her in a positive light". Are you dropping this, or contesting it? If you're contesting it, I'm more than willing to help. Pdfpdf 04:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I agree it's borderline but I'm not going to argue it. It's not as though we're strapped for space in the lead paragraph. What I did with the Shakira article is moved the Grammy win comment down a sentence - no great drama. Tabercil 11:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. If you change your mind, my offer is still there. I like the way you avoided contention will Spellcast; I think I'll use the same approach on the page I'm interested in. And you're quite correct, there is indeed "no great drama". (Nevertheless, I still find it irritating ... (I'm told that visualising a calm blue ocean is the best approach to that emotion.)) Thanks. Pdfpdf 09:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tabatha_Cash_06460.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Tabatha_Cash_06460.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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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 13:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Heck. If you can, speedy delete the image. I uploaded it back before the current fair-use regime got properly clobbered into place; it's not being used in a fair-use manner right now and will probably never be used in a fair-use manner. Tabercil 16:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tabatha_Cash_06460.jpg
I have tagged Image:Tabatha_Cash_06460.jpg as orphaned fairuse. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add article name to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. Bigr Tex  01:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Tubetends
I'm not going to be able to take a look at this for a day or so. So would you mind taking a look at User:Tubetends' edits? Specifically those to Danni Ashe, and Renee LaRue. Thanks, Dismas |(talk) 21:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Savannah Samson

 * No, my intention was not to remove your edits. I apologize for any inconvenience.  The anonymous user has changes his IP address for virtually every edit he makes, and has been making borderline vandalous edits on quite a few articles relating to pornography (I assume mostly gay pornography), only couched in Wikilawyering semantics.  As he often does, he removed quite a bit of content, and although some of it was perhaps cruft, other information included her before porn history, among other relevant information for an encyclopedic article.  Rather than spending a bunch of time reviewing each of his edits figuring out what is relevant and what isn't, as most editors seem to, I think it would be much better to revert changes he makes, particularly when he is doing this sort of editing.  -Todd ( Talk - Contribs ) 10:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD Help
Hi, six of my articles have put up by AfD by the same person and are being voted on all by the same persons.. I was wondering if you could look the articles over and the things written on the discussion pages and give me your honest answer as to should they be up for vote or am I being paranoid? The articles are: Last week I lost one of my articles and I thought it was a good faith AfD but now with six more up for vote this week I think there is more behind these AfD then good faith. Callelinea 13:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Miguel Luis Tamargo-Bautista
 * Vinagre Portillo
 * Alonso J. del Portillo-Tamargo
 * Alonso R. del Portillo
 * Alonso del Portillo-Marcano
 * Alonso del Portillo-del Junco
 * Thanks. I'll be patient.. I do value your judgement.  Callelinea 20:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Callelinea
I see you have adopted this user. Please advise him/her regarding WP:POINT. This user has been blocked once today. This user has stated that he/she intends to disrupt Wikipedia further and then retire from the project (top of user page). This user is well on track for an extended block. As your adoptee, you may have some influence. Rklawton 19:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll take a hard look at the situation later on, when I'm not at work. Tabercil 19:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advise.. All the points you raise are valid. I am just curious as to why all these articles were put up together and the IP address that was created to vote on the articles.. Yes the articles might be non-notable as they now read, but why where they all put up for a vote now? and together?  Obviously someone was looking into the articles that I have created and decided to put them up for votes.  I will take a day or two off and then see what can be done to save some of these articles or if not just recreate them after my trip to Cuba.. But it annoys me that my comments in the Discussion page of Miguel Luis Tamargo Bautista were ignored and that the article was put up for a vote before my trip.. And the person that nominated my articles did not even have the curtisy to give me a heads up that he was going to nominate the articles.  The person who nominated the other article that was removed gave me a heads up.  I feel there is something more behind those nominations them meets the eye.. no way for me to prove it, but it a gut feeling.  Callelinea 23:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As you say, it might be suspicious but what I think is more likely to have happened is that the user in question, Corvus cornix, came across one of the articles, felt it was non-notable then followed some of the links in the article. As for how he came across it in the first place, I'd guess probably by clicking on the "Random article" link at the left. I know I've done that a few times and stopped to edit some of what came up. I dunno... but I'd suggest you keep your suspicions to yourself for now. You're in deep enough as it is, especially since there will probably be other people who will now be taking a hard look at all of your edits (witness the speedy deletion of the article on Joe Garcia you did)... put your own house in order first. Tabercil 00:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Callelinea was notified at the outset that several of his/her articles were not notable. Rather than nominate them all at once, we wanted to give this editor the opportunity to satisfy the terms of WP:BIO as promised.  Callelinea failed to do so, and the remaining articles were put up for deletion.  The only nefarious activities come from Callelinea who


 * 1) stated that he/she could improve the first article enough to satisfy WP:BIO,
 * 2) violated WP:POINT by adding the same "KEEP" line to a dozen or so questionable, unrelated biographies put up for AfD,
 * 3) violated WP:POINT again by nominating another 13 articles for deletion - articles created by editors who voted against the first article,
 * 4) spammed nearly a dozen editors for help rather than simply make a post on WP:ANI, and
 * 5) declared his/her intention to continue disrupting the project before leaving for good.  This user has expressed opposition to Wikipedia's notability requirements and has sought to change policy by disrupting our work.


 * I can't speak for the motivation of others, but I have seen several editors, including myself, attempting to assume good faith and extend every courtesy to Callelinea. Callelinea's response has been a mix of paranoia and continued disruption.  The community's patience will soon be exhausted.  Rklawton 00:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The way I came into this was because I had participated in the AfD for Isabel S. Martinez, and once it was determined that she failed notability, then I began reviewing the articles which were associated with that article, and came across those other names. I haven't gone any further, though there are some pretty obvious non-notable articles which Callelinea has written which I have not nominated, trying to calm down his repeated failures to assume good faith, his WP:POINT violations, and his statement that he will re-nominate all of the articles I have created for deletion at some point in the future despite repeated comments from several non-involved editors that what he's doing is wrong.  Corvus cornix 02:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And as I said in the mini-essay I left on Callelinea's talk page towards the end: "what you did was piss poor stupid and you deservedly got blocked for it." I did not know of all what he did, but I saw enough of them to see how disastrous they were. Hopefully he understands what he did was wrong and that he makes amends for his actions. In terms of a tit-for-tat AFD between you and him, I do hope that won't occur as that will ultimately lead to one or possibly both of you being blocked from editing. I don't know anything about you Corvus, but I think Callelinea has potential to be a productive editor on Cuban-related topics... but it is up to him to show that potential. I can but persuade and advise, but if the horse don't want to drink... Tabercil 03:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
As I have stated before I wanted to thank you for all your advise you have given me in the past even though you have decided not to be my mentor anymore. Unfortately, I did not read all of the previous stuff that is on your talk page until now. Maybe if I had I would not of become so paranoid.. I honestly believed that all my AfD's were because of the Henry Pollack problem but now I see that it had nothing to do with it. I will be apologizing soon to Rklawton, even though I feel he was mistaken in many of the things he has done since then. I will try to give him the benifit of the doubt, as for Corvus, I think he got my message that he needed to fix his articles before he started going around and critizing other articles. And the articles I started to nominate of his for AfD, I did put down why I thought they should be put up for AfD and I have checked and already in two of them he has made changes that I had suggested.. In all the AfD's that I have voted on, I have voted on them only after I have read them, did a little research on them and tried to give suggestions on how to improve them. I try to treat them as I would like to have mine treated. I may be late in getting your imput in my head, but eventually it did me good. Thanks again. Callelinea 18:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Commons
Hi, Tabercil, would you mind to provide your commons user name, and if possible, to create a link on your commons user page to this account, signing on it, as a proof of identication? It helps us Election Committee to examine a certain vote casted from Commons. Thank you for your attention, Cheers, --Aphaia 09:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Aphaia 15:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Bianca Beauchamp & categories
Hello. I noticed you reverted my edit regarding categories in the Bianca Beauchamp article. While I agree subcategories of the Adult models and Canadian models were already mentioned, I don't think adding a supercategory is a duplicate information. I don't want to start an edit war, so I present my viewpoints here to discuss them with you.

First if a listing in a subecategory would mean not appearing in the supercategory then the whole adult models category becomes nonsense and empty as every model has some nationality. Same applies for the national list, as probably for every model a category he/she belongs to could be found.

Second, while adding a supercategory seemingly doesn't have much informational value in the article itself, it means the article apears in the category. Simply put the information is not symmetrical. Somebody searching in the Canadian models category will probably prefer to find all the names at one place instead of going through all subcategories (despite they are mentioned there). And what if there would be subsubcategories or even deeper levels? That would be a pure annoyance and a contradiction of categories' existence - to list all articles of some common attribute at once place.

What you think?:-) Cheers Rikapt 13:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the rules for categorization are found in Categorization (hereafter call WP:CAT) and Categorization and subcategories (WP:SUBCAT). The general rule as found in WP:CAT is "Articles should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory" so that means parent categories such as Category:Adult models and Category:Canadian models would be made obsolete by the presense of Category:Canadian adult models.
 * Now comes the tricky part: WP:SUBCAT. This gives guidelines which state when an item should be in both parent and child categories. The main thrust seems to be that if other articles of the same nature are in both parent and child categories, then the article you are looking at should also be the same. So starting with the Canadian models category: to me, it looks like the people who are in this category are people who are not naturally models but rather actresses (e.g., Victoria Pratt and Elisha Cuthbert) while the subcategories (which include Category:Canadian fashion models and Category:Canadian beauty pageant contestants among others) are well populated. So the Canadian models category should not be used.
 * The other parent category is Adult Model, and that parent category has a very extensive list of people present. Looking in Category:Adult models by nationality, we can see the subcats are relatively sparse and to me seem mostly made up of various people who have appeared in Playboy. But I do not see any instance where someone is in both child and parent categories.
 * So I would say Bianca should not be in Adult Model, nor should she be in Canadian Model. Tabercil 21:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an acceptable explanation. While I still doubt a little if the adult category is all that logically structured your reasons are valid and follow the Wikipedia practice. I will not argue on this anymore :-). Thanks for you time. Rikapt 08:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gary_Graver.jpg
I have tagged Image:Gary_Graver.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. Rettetast 21:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Gillian_ferrari.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gillian_ferrari.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 11:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Becky_kellar.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Becky_kellar.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 08:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not 'my' information.
I have no idea where it came from; I just reverted what I saw as a legal threat. And I don't appreciate being called a vandal; I'd sooner stab my eyes out than purposefully do damage here. I never reverted anything the second time, I simply did a space edit and posted a note. HalfShadow 05:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I never even looked at the picture before now; I reverted it based on the edit summary, which, you have to admit, looks...odd. Admittedly, I may have made a mistake, but that's no excuse for her to call me a vandal... HalfShadow 05:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Charline_labonte.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Charline_labonte.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bleh999 16:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Cherie_piper.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Cherie_piper.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bleh999 16:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Bleh seems to be right. There's a reasonably good Cheri Piper Flickr photo you can ask about making free at http://flickr.com/photos/howlingmad/465775585/ and the same Flickr user has some (less good, as they're uniformed) Charline Labonte pics. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)