User talk:Tarret/Archive 2

De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde
The problems of this article that you recently failed has been addressed. -- Mithril Cloud 03:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Edward Said
I am new at this. I hope that I have not put this in the wrong place. I am concerned about the Edward Said article. I saw that it received a "Pass" in five of six catagories, yet the article represents an extremely partisan view of a highly controversial figure whose veracity -- especially regarding his personal history -- has been widely challenged. In fact nothing in the biographical section can be regarded as neutral, much of it may be convenient invention.

Can you please explain to me how this article was chosen as a potential "Good Article"?Scott Adler 23:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

iPod
I've fixed what you said needed to, but by no means am I an Ipod editor, just saw what needed to be done. AFAIK, 2G, 4G etc refers to 2nd/4th generation ipods rather than a unit of measurement. Thanks, RHB 00:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

GA promotion
You recently promoted Campbell's Soup Cans to GA. It is my belief that all of the images in that article violate Wikipedia copyright guidelines. A photograph of a piece of artwork should not be claimed as the work of the photographer, and I believe it should have failed GA on that basis. Is there a line of reasoning that I've overlooked? Appraiser 01:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I'm discussing the image issue with some other people.  I'm certain the "main" image will ultimately be removed.  Looking more closely at the others (in the gallery), one of them states, "The source is edu.warhol.org. They are the copyright holders and expressly permit personal, informational, educational, and non-commercial use of this photo on their website."  This seems to apply.  But the others say, "The image linked here is claimed to be used under fair use as: 1. It is a historically significant painting. 2. The image is only being used for informational purposes. 3.Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it shows the subject of this article and how the image depicted is familiar to the general public. 4.The image is readily available on the internet."  I am a bit more troubled by that rationale.  If they were all downloaded from edu.warhol.org, then that should be cited.  (Otherwise, I agree that the article meets GA criteria) Appraiser 15:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Oanda Corporation
I've gone ahead and expanded the article, with citations from some reliable sources (with pretty good potential for more, from a LexisNexis search. Would you please have another look, and see whether you'd be inclined to change your opinion on the AFD? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Byzantine-Arab Wars
Thank you for reviewing the GA nomination for Byzantine-Arab Wars. As you requested to be informed, the article has been improved per the changes recommended on the article's discussion page: no months or days of the week are linked; 24 years and decades were delinked per WP:MOSNUM, because they did not provide relevant context to the events in question; "The" was removed from the heading "The Wars in North Africa", per WP:MSH; and three minor fixes to the article were made in the process of delinking. --Grimhelm 23:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

TC Rainfall Climatology article
The comment on GA hold was not clear enough for me...I require clarification. Tropical cyclone rainfall is a topic that a number of scientists have investigated, though documentation concerning data on a country-by-country basis remains lacking. I would rather not combine a number of countries just to reduce its "stubiness". Is what you're saying that it still requires the inclusion of more information on a country-by-country basis? Thegreatdr 19:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

thank you
Hi Tarret, Thanks very much for the barnstar! Thanks for pointing to WP:TOOLS - I'll add it there. I wanted to make sure the script would do what it was supposed to before I spread it too far. You have encouraged my fledgling javascripting! (Some other ideas I'm looking at include showing the WikiProjects present on the talk page, by means of mouseovers for example.) If you have any requests, let me know. – Outriggr § 04:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Your Good Article Nomination of Radon
Hi there, I had a look at the article you nominated for GA, Radon. There are, unfortunately, a few problems with it and as such I have put it on hold until these things are done. Please check out the talk page for more info. Thanks! Smomo 18:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Neon
Drat! Sorry! I saw your message, but wasn't feeling well, then I forgot about it. I'll go look after lunch. Adam Cuerden talk 11:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent work, and I do apologise for taking so long about this. It was pretty clearly GA except for the referencing all along, so... =) Do poke me when the rest of the elements you did are referenced. Adam Cuerden talk 22:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Strawberry Panic! GA hold
I have improved the article since your initial review. Would you look at it again and see if it is a GA now?-- 十  八  09:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Argon
The article Argon you nominated as a good article has passed, see Talk:Argon for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 19:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your GA fail of Spore (video game)
I have submitted your assessment of Spore (video game) for review, as I believe you did not assess the article with correct use of the GA criteria. Feel free to add your input on the review section, where you will find my objections to your review detailed. Thanks, --163.1.165.116 22:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

script
''Is it possible to make the rating selector hidable so that when it isn't being used it doesn't clutter the top of the page? Tarret 01:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)''

Not when you asked, but I have added this functionality. You will see the options "[On]/[Hide]/[Off]" now. – Outriggr § 02:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Renominated your delisting
Hello Tarret, you delisted five A-Class articles of the Chemicals wikiproject for the technical reason that they didn't have in-line references. As old A-Class articles they have enough references, most even with referring notes. So, I simply made the references in-line now, and renominated them on WP:GAC. Please would you be so sportive as to re-list them as GA too. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 19:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

[[Image:The Entertainer - Scott Joplin.ogg]]
...has been promoted to featured sound status. Thanks for your nomination. MER-C 10:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Delisting of List of Oregon State University alumni as a GA
Hi there. I saw you delisted List of Oregon State University alumni from the GA list, but you didn't explain why, nor did you open up a discussion on it at Good article review. The article has been listed as a GA for several months now and I don't see what could have changed. VegaDark 22:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I see that you did explain why at the bottom. In either case, Lists were allowed to be reviewed as GA's at the time it was reviewed, and just because they are no longer allowed does not necessarily mean it should be delisted. I've listed it at GAR. VegaDark 22:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Catalina Yachts
I don't dispute that the Catalia Yachts article lacks the polish to qualify as a "good article"; however, I do dispute the allegation of single sourcing. The notes section is heavilly weighted with statistical references to the Catalina website, but the history of the founder, the company, and the line is well referenced to three substantial and informative sources: Good Old Boat magazine: Volume 4, Number 1, January/February 2001, Sail Magazine: August 2004 pages 54 - 57, and Heart of GLASS, Fiberglass Boats And The Men Who Made Them by Daniel Spurr pages 244 - 250. The performance statisitcs are cited from an independent source, the Northern California Yacht Racing Association, with published ratings based on and consistent with other worldwide rating organizations. --Kevin Murray 20:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. It tried following the multiple note instructions, but got this result: .  After the thord repetition of the note the rest of the page is blank.  By eliminating the third reference, the fourth appears, but the rest of the page is blank.  Any ideas?  Or is this function limited to 3 repetitions?  --Kevin Murray 22:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Environmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef GA hold
I believe that I've addressed your concerns, although I can't see any dates in the article that would be suitable to link. -Malkinann 06:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Article
The article Article you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Article for things needed to be addressed. Doctor Sunshine  talk  22:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A request re: Kashimashi
Hello, I saw that you last helped my endevor of getting the Strawberry Panic! article up to GA status by reviewing the article and ranking it as a GA article. Now I have a tiny request to make; would it be too much trouble for you to review Kashimashi which is currently up for a GA? In the section it is in on the candidates list, the one above it has been reviewed and is on hold (I reviewed it myself), so there shouldn't be a problem in terms of waiting in line for the articles above to get done. I've been waiting paitently for a week, but still no one has reviewed it and I believe it's been GA quality for a week now and just need someone to review it to make the final say and this is where you come in. I completely understand if you choose not to do the review; just thought I might as well ask.-- 十  八  07:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I left a note at Talk:Kashimashi about some changes; wasn't sure if you noticed.-- 十  八  03:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Your GA review
I have answered your nomination statements here. &mdash; Deckiller 20:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA Ash Ketchum
Please tell me how exactly this article was in-universe. Vikrant Phadkay 14:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Tarret! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

GAC backlog elimination drive
This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all GA members and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :GAReview underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 23:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Planetarian: Chiisana Hoshi no Yume
While I do understand that having a development section and influences section would be great, these sections are very difficult to find information on, especially with an utter lack of staff interviews for this game. I have staff interviews for Kanon, Air, and Clannad, but they never released a visual fan book for Planetarian and anything that would contain interviews were probably gaming magazines way back in 2004 when the game was first released and are thus next to impossible to find. Not only that, but even if I did find some it would be just as difficult (if not more) to translate them into English as I am not well adept to translating Japanese yet.

As for influence on pop culture, I'm not sure what you mean. This is a visual novel, so I doubt it had any influence on Japanese pop culture. If you meant influence on Japanese otaku/Japanese gaming culture then maybe, but then again it wasn't one of Key's most popular titles, and sales figures are terrible to guage because the game was released for downloading over the Internet first and the numbers just don't seem to be anywhere. When the game was released on disc for the PC, it didn't even get on the national ranking for bishōjo games on how well they sold in Japan while all of Key's other games have so far accomplished this feat. And as far as I can tell, the PS2 version was never reviewed by Famitsu for what it's worth.

All I'll say is that both Kanon, and Air (visual novel) passed GA without these sections you are asking for in the Planetarian article even though I agree with you that it would be great to include them.--  十  八  22:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the pop culture part, as I've stated my reasons above, but I added in a development section at the top.--  十  八  10:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Planetarian: Chiisana Hoshi no Yume
Just thought I'd ask if could either fail or pass Planetarian: Chiisana Hoshi no Yume now, as you've had the article on hold for nine days now, over the maximum allowed hold time of one week. Sorry if you were already going to do that. Thanks, Green451 16:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold
Hey there Tarret. First off, thanks for getting around to reviewing Manitoba. It's been a candidate for a week, or something, and it's been starting to REEEEALLY bug me that it wasn't getting reviewed.

I was wondering if you could perhaps clarify what MOS issues you had with the lead section. I didn't quite understand what you meant. :) Thanks, GrooveDog (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive
A new elimination drive of the backlog at Good article candidates  will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :GAReview underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 23:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Victoria Cross (Canada)
Please see the fair use issues I've raised under you GA pass. Also, please consider a more in-depth review when passing/failing/whatevering articles. Thanks, Giggy  UCP 01:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, why did you pass an article I put on hold a few hours before? - Flubeca Talk 21:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Trcalogo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Trcalogo.gif. 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 after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hurricane GA's
Yea, sure thing. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pac-Man in popular culture
Pac-Man in popular culture, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Pac-Man in popular culture satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has 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/Pac-Man in popular culture& and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Pac-Man in popular culture 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. Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Bleeding Through GA On Hold
Hi there!

I've done a separate section for the band's musical style, its progression, etc. I don't think that a criticisms section is necessary, or possible at all, besides the reviews of albums, that are included in the body of the article. Also, why is a "Performance on Charts" section necessary? The band has released 4 albums so far, they don't need and don't have a separate discography page, so the chart performances are included in the article and the discography section too. Their first two albums didn't chart at all, only the next two charted, so I don't really see a point in making a section just for these two positions... I hope the article is ready now. Gocsa 15:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA
I have left you an optional question that you may want to answer on you RfA.  T Rex  | talk  14:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you speak English?
Vandalism is bad. I know this. You also know this. Updating Wikipedia and ENHANCING it is good. I know this. Do you know this? You reverted my edit. It needed to be FIXED. I wanted to fix it but I am only a visitor to this site. I don't spend so much time here that I think I need a special nickname. You should look at "disappearing gun" again. Look at "fort casey" too. cheers.

Your edit to Large Hadron Collider
You reverted as vandalism an effort to shorten and remove redundancy from a section in the Large Hadron Collider article, which was explained on the talk page. Please be more careful in the future; the message you left on the user's talk page could easily be off-putting to a knowledgeable user who was trying to improve the article. I know occasional mistakes are inevitable, especially with automated tools, but I urge you to go slower to keep the rate down. One bitten newbie hurts more than a hundred vandalism reverts helps. -- SCZenz 16:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

color changes to GA 2nd opinion templates
Regarding your color changes, I agree with the fact that it should be a different (although I haven't quite got to the stage yet). I was wondering if you wouldn't mind changing the grey to yellow instead? The broken failed image is already grey, and I think yellow would stand out a little bit better, and be a bit more indicative of what we're trying to accomplish; red indicates the review has STOPPED, waiting for fixes/input from the nominator or other editors; yellow would indicate that the review is slowing down, so that other reviewers can take a look before going full forward with a pass. Or something along those lines? Thanks! Dr. Cash 02:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

History of Christmas tree cultivation
The above article isn't even close to ready for GAC. Not sure why you would nominate it without consulting the sole author. Please reconsider your nomination at this time. Thanks. IvoShandor 05:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

At Wikimedia Commons, images upload you!
Now that I have your attention...

Thank you for uploading images/media to Wikipedia! There is however another Wikimedia foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please consider creating an account and uploading media there instead. That way, all the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Moving images to the Commons (you may view images you have previously uploaded by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'image' namespace from the drop down box). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading! Richard001 09:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles/GA nominees task force
I'm considering nominating this for deletion considering it's inactive and redundant. Do you, as the creator, object?  Lara Love  02:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

GAN 2nd opinions/StatisticianBot
A couple weeks ago you sent me a message asking me to augment User:StatisticianBot to keep track of GAN second opinions. This is now implemented; if you take a look at the report page, starting with tomorrow's run, you will find added information dealing with 2nd opinions (a section for old second opinions, and added stats in the Backlog report and Summary sections). &mdash;Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 23:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Theory of Colours second opinion
Thank you for your interest in the GA WikiPrioject, and for undertaking this review. Using the GA criteria, I have looked over the article and your comments, and there are a few more issues you could raise with the editors:


 * Manual of Style compliance: most of the inline citations will need to be moved to sit outside the punctuation rather than inside it (so they look like the one at the end of the first para of Historical background).
 * It's not strictly a GA criteria, but we recommend editors use the templates on WP:CITET to format references. This lets them be parsed by bots for things like tracking down archived versions of dead web-page links, or converting 10-digit ISBNs to 13-digits.
 * There are a few instances of possible editorialising that need to be rewritten (or sourced). For example:
 * "Today, Goethe's Theory of Colours is still remarkable for its phenomenological observations." Who says so?
 * "His claim that colour arises from the interplay of light and dark has caused almost all of modern physics to reject Goethe's theory as unscientific..." Prove it


 * I spotted at least one contraction in the prose ("didn't"). This should be written in full.
 * The article is in British English, so spelling should be consistent ("analyzed" could be changed to "analysed", and the same for "characterized" - editors might see this as nitpicky though!)
 * Section order: this should be Lead; Main body; See also; Notes; References; Further reading/Bibliography; External links (the See also section needs moving)
 * Only full dates should really be wikilinked; there is no need to link years unless it adds depth to the article... which in my experience it never has yet! (there is an instance of this in the lead). Linking decades is fine.
 * There are a number of gaps in the referencing (this partly relates to my 'editorialising' comment above). The rule of thumb for GA is currently to have one cite at the end of each paragraph to cover the content of that paragraph, with additional cites where needed (eg quotations, controversial statements etc). For scientific articles the cite-per-pragraph may not always be necessary (some theories etc are commonly accepted), but the content should still be referenced somewhere.
 * More wikilinks would help the reader and add depth to the article.

I think that's enough to be going on with! My personal feeling is that this could have been quick-failed, since as you rightly pointed out it also needs a thorough copyedit and possibly a reorganisation (I'm not sure about the Quotations section for one; the entire article is basically quotations). However, it never hurts to give editors as much information as possible ;)

Hope this helps; all the best, EyeSerene TALK 19:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for November 2007
The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Theory of Colours
I've failed it, 15 days passed after the 2nd review and no action was taken by the article's editors. See Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations .Yamanbaiia 07:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

GA and WP1.0
Hi - I believe it was you who introduced the Wikipedia 1.0 hierarchy into the GA list. In view of this, and your comments last month at WT:GA, I thought you might be interested in a little workshop I've set up to try to harmonize the GA and WP1.0 lists at the subtopic level. Geometry guy 20:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for December 2007
The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment at Talk:quadratic equation
Hello Tarret. I've replied to a comment you left at Talk:quadratic equation. I'd appreciate it if you could reply there. Thanks. Paul August &#9742; 19:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles January Newsletter
Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Modification of political parties under the Restoration
I am looking into helping out on cleanup and started with Category:Cleanup from January 2006, where I came across what looks like your translation of a french article Modification of political parties under the Restoration. It needs help. It looks like it survived one deletion discussion. I know enough french to help, but it looks like the original article was part of a timeline set of articles on the french wikipedia and I'm not sure this one will work as it is. I suspect some of this is covered in other ways in the english wikipedia. Do you have any plans to improve it your self? Would you have objects if I were to bring it to AfD again? (John User:Jwy talk) 01:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Non-free promotional discussion
Hello, Tarret. Since you recently contributed to the lively deletion discussion for Template:Non-free promotional, I thought I'd let you know that I've continued the discussion about this template at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. The result of the deletion discussion was to keep the template, but there are still some questions about whether the current template serves a useful purpose and how to prevent its misapplication. Please contribute to the discussion if you are interested. —Bkell (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Reworked Earth Abides page.
Hello. I just spent some time on the Earth Abides page, and I need an opionion as to whether I have fulfilled what is needed to remove the unverified claims tag, in the "Analysis" section. Jacqke (talk) 04:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter
The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Vnickle.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Vnickle.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.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Alberta.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Alberta.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.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:GAcc
A tag has been placed on Template:GAcc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)