User talk:Ash sul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Il-96RussianGov.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Il-96RussianGov.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please use edit summaries

Hello. Please be courteous to other editors and use edit summaries when updating articles. The Mathbot tool shows your usage of edit summaries to be nonexistent:

Edit summary usage for Ash sul: 0% for major edits and 0% for minor edits. Based on the last 59 major and 0 minor edits in the article namespace.

Using edit summaries helps other editors quickly understand your edits, which is especially useful when you make changes to articles that are on others' watchlists. Thanks and happy editing! --Kralizec! (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Jen.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Jen.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Jen.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jen.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Yamla 22:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FUC

Your violation of WP:FUC on Jennifer Aniston appears to have been deliberate. Please refrain from any further violations. Thanks. --Yamla 22:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You said: ""Used in blatant violation of license and deliberate violation of WP:FUC. --Yamla 22:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)" - Very rude comment from User:Yamla. To use the words "blatant violation" without discussing with image owner is very unprofessional. Please get your head out of the sand every now and then. I have uploaded this image for the same reason your working so hard for Wikipedia - try and make information pages as high-quality as possible for readers. I don't do this for business! I have uploaded this image with confidence that I can use TV screenshot to identify the actress. The image summary is pretty self-explanatory. Any technical violation is inadvertent. Plus, your comments do not fully explain the violations made by my image upload. So I suggest you come up with a better and more professional explanation. This way, you will help us to understand copyright issues better - that is if you want to."

This edit shows you removing the warning not to insert copyrighted images such as the one you inserted and points you to the policy that deals with fair-use images. That you removed this to insert your image in violation of this policy is what merited the warning. You may not use a TV screenshot to identify the actress. Please reread WP:FUC. --Yamla 17:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You said: "Once again, I am baffled by the sheer lack of details on your work or explanation on my image. You have so far only explained why you have removed this image from "Jennifer Aniston" article (although that is still a matter of debate as I have plenty of examples of screenshots being used as actor/actress identifier - Example). But I cannot understand why you have tagged the image itself for deletion.
I have read WP:FUC. TV screenshot upload (copyright) issue clearly states that an image can be used for identifying/commenting a TV program and/or its contents. So logic would dictate that my screen shot is perfectly valid as it describes a TV advertisement.
So please stop this nonsense and remove your "quick deletion" tag from my image immediately. If you have any rational objections (which you are currently lacking), I suggest we get a second opinion, possibly from an actual administrator."

I didn't delete the image, another admin did. However, if the image is not used in any articles, we are not permitted to keep it around (assuming it is a fair-use image). As to other fair-use images being used to depict living people, these would also generally be in violation of WP:FUC. This is grounds to mark those images as problem, not an excuse to use fair-use images inappropriately in additional locations. The license clearly states that the image can be used for "identification and critical commentary on the station ID or the program and its contents". You were not doing so, you were using the image solely to illustrate a living person for whom a replaceable freely-licensed image could be created. Note that a tv screenshot may be used to depict that t.v. show. This is entirely different from using a t.v. screenshot to depict an actor from that show, which is not permitted. Now, you are welcome to seek another opinion but note that another administrator (Nv8200p) already reviewed this image and found it to be inappropriate for the Wikipedia as it was being used. However, given that the image was clearly a fair-use image (it was a t.v. screenshot) and given that it was being used to depict a subject which still exists (in this case, a living actor) in violation of the first criteria of WP:FUC, you will not get very far with a third opinion. --Yamla 02:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, I don't understand your crack about "an actual administrator". I'm sure you are aware that I am an administrator here on the Wikipedia. --Yamla 02:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You said: "No! I didn't know that you're an administrator. Your willingness towards being more arrogant and unprofessional was a far cry from general web administrators (especially on non-profitable sites), who generally tend to be more helpful and professional.
As for the copyright issue, it is now clear to me that, although you know copyright facts in great details, you are just willing to make things difficult rather than take the professional and rational approach. If you knew all along that all this image needed was "specific pointer towards the TV program itself" (i.e. - if the image had been labelled as (for example) "Jennifer Aniston seen here during a Heineken TV commercial - Example", this image could have been saved). You could have done this yourself. Obviously it is your ego that has prevented you from resorting to "fixing other peoples problems".
 But certainly it was a good experience for me."

This is not the case as has been pointed out to you both by the pointer to WP:FUC and by explanation. Once again, you may not use a fair-use image to depict an actor from the show. You may not use fair-use images to depict living people. Had the image been marked with a specific pointer towards the TV program itself, it could have been used in an article about that tv commercial but not in an article about Jennifer Aniston, to depict Aniston. Please do not leave me any more comments until you have read WP:FU to which I have repeatedly directed you. Additionally, please read WP:NPA. Your personal attacks are unwarranted and may lead to a block. --Yamla 16:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, please note that I did fix this problem. I removed an image from the Wikipedia which was replaceable and thus a violation of WP:FUC and which could not have been justified for its use. --Yamla 16:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Mysergei.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Mysergei.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. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, 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.

Please go to the image 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 '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 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. Yamla 02:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:National space programmes

Hi Ashiq,

...I see your point regarding "Flag congestion". But now it looks well weird with too much room inside the template. All things considered, I think we should revert back to old style - or think of a style that doesn't take up so much space! I didn't want to change it back without discussing with you first. What do you think??

Thanks for your contact. I've just tried compacting the template; how does it look to you now...?  I'm not entirely convinced and wonder if the template might not work better without the flags, attractive though they may be... Sometimes simpler is better, in this case a return to:

v • d • e
National space programmes

Yours, David Kernow (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Your new changes actually look pretty good. I also see the point you make about the old "non-flag" template. But I quite like the way you have improvised to make this template look pretty cool! So, in my opinion, we should keep your changes. Cheers dude!
Thanks – if anyone isn't keen on it, I guess we'll soon hear/see!  Best wishes, David (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
...I have noticed that some users keep modifying this template with unnecessary changes and adding incorrect/disputed information, which you would agree, can be very misleading.
I was wondering, as an administrator, would you consider semi protecting this template against unregistered users!
Done!  Regards, David (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Space Research Organisation

Hi Ashtiq,

...I would appreciate if you could please have a look at this and leave your comment(s)...

Sorry not to acknowledge your message sooner. I'll try to take a look sometime during the weekend, but have hit one of those "do-everything-all-at-once-by-yesterday" patches. I haven't read the article before, but am interested to do so. Yours, David (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have tried addressing your concerns. Pl have a look. --Marqus 22:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re Zimbabwe

Hi again,

Could you please semi-protect the article on Zimbabwe. It seems to be suffering from quite a bit of vandalism recently (see history)...

Agreed; have semi-protected it as the vandalism seems to be from anon IPs. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re 4th generation jet fighter

...could you please see the history of the artice 4th generation jet fighter. It seems to have a lot of disputes between editors of Indian and Pakistani origins. Clearly, this is undesirable on an encyclopidic article.

At a glance, the recent history doesn't look too unsettled, but I realise much may lie behind edit summaries. I'll add it to my to-do list (after or before Indian Space Research Organisation...?) but I'm wondering if someone more familiar with fighter planes should take a look. If so, User:Askari Mark might be your man, otherwise maybe someone else involved in one or more of the WikiProjects linked from his userpage. Cheers, David (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, sorry to interfere but I would like to share some quick points. There is a difference between a customized aircraft (ex F-15SG) and a jointly developed aircraft (ex JSF). Su-30 MKI does not come under both of these categories for the following reasons:
  • Though, Su-30 MKI is a variant of Sukhoi's Su-30, the avionics of the aircraft (like radar computer, radar warning receiver, mission computer etc.) are made by DRDO and HAL; a crucial component of any fighter aircraft. As a matter of fact, there are talks of Indian avionics being used in the variant Sukhoi has developed for Malaysia.
  • The missiles being used in the aircraft are also Indian. For example: Astra missile will replace KAB-500L and Brahmos (joint Indo-Russian) will replace Kh-59. DRDO is already developing an indigenous Optical locator system for these missiles.
  • Electronic countermeasure system of the aircraft is Indian too. Tarang, the RWR system, was developed by DRDO.
  • Israel's contribution to the aircraft is equivalent to that of Russia's. Elta EL/M-8222 self-protection jammer and LITENING targeting pod are all Israeli made.
  • French contribution: HUD Sextant VEH3000 and navigation system Totem INS/GPS
  • The radar of the aircraft, Ibris phased array radar, is jointly developed by DRDO and Russia.
Without these equipments and gadgets, a fighter aircraft is nothing but a sitting duck. Therefore, to say that Su-30 MKI is joint collaboration between India and Russia with Israeli help is more accurate. Thanks --Incman|वार्ता 18:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Well.. on second thoughts, "Under licensed production from Russia" seems fair enough. I have no problem with the current version. --Incman|वार्ता 18:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
No. Sukhoi cannot add all of the concerned Indian, French and Israeli gadgets to any other aircraft without their permission. As a matter of fact, the equipments are added to the aircraft by HAL and not by Sukhoi. The MK, MKM and the MKK versions, the Su-35 and the Su-37 do not feature these gadgets. That's why there were reports that Sukhoi had approached DRDO and HAL to add the Indian avionics to the MKM version. Thanks --Incman|वार्ता 01:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think I got what you are trying to say. I was just replying to your this remark, Sukhoi is the party making all the money out of this and it will distribute revenue and profit to all the external partners accordingly, and also, it holds the right to sell this variant to other parties. All I wanted to say was that Sukhoi is not involved in the deal between IAF and HAL, DRDO, IAI and Thales Corp. IAF pays IAI and Thales Corp. directly for their gadgets since the Israeli gadgets are for sale to very few countries and Russia is not one of them. The difference between MKM and MKI versions should give you a clearer idea. Thanks --Incman|वार्ता 16:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I got your message, Ash sul. Sorry I haven't responded sooner, but I've been out of town on a business trip. I'll try to take a look at this today, but my wife is sick, so depending on how much our kids help out, I may have minimal time. Still, I'm intimately familiar with the subject and can provide unbiased guidance. Askari Mark (Talk) 16:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re Chelsea F.C.

Hi Ash,

Could you please semi-protect article Chelsea F.C. It seems to have been constantly suffering from vandalism...

I see what you mean, though as of now it seems to've calmed down (maybe because UK/Europe is asleep...?). If, though, the vandals have returned by the time I look tomorrow – and noone else has protected the article – then I'll do so. Yours, David (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re World War II

Hi again Ash,

I would like to request the main article World War II to be once again semi-protected, it seem to sufering from vandalism quite a bit...

Agreed and done. I guess I was a little surprised that such a prominent article (i.e. likely target) isn't permanently semi-protected, so suggested this policy alongside the reason for protection. Thanks for spotting, David (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

PS I haven't forgotten about Indian Space Research Organisation#Opinions and analysis; you may've seen the little editing I've contributed so far. I'm aiming to revisit it again soon – or do you reckon it's now okay...?

Cheers David.
Many thanks once again for such a quick response!
As for the Indian Space Research Organisation#Opinions and analysis, I reckon its much better and more fact based now from when I first "spoke" to you about this. So (in my opinion) it looks better now.

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Oligarchs

Template:Oligarchs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. - NYC JD (make a motion) 16:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Because, exactly as you said, there were NO cameras back then. Comparing a film character to a wall sculpture of a person that we cannot even verify if it's the way he looked is hardly notable. We have written testimony about what Xerxes looked liked, but you cannot encyclopedically compare a live action person with wall art. Maybe, if it was a true painting, but even so the film is not based on history, it's based on a comic book. That is why we have a comparison with the comicbook, because that is what it get's its information from, not history. Now, the comic gets it from history, but vaguely. It is not appropriate, nor would it pass fair use to compare film Xerxes to wall art Xerxes, especially wall art where you cannot really see the man (it's a side profile, where you cannot distinguish beard from robe.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It was something that came up awhile ago. I actually don't understand why we have a "historical accuracy" section, when we know the film wasn't based on history, but a graphic novel that took its own liberties with history. But, I think that has more to do with the fact that most critics of the historical inaccuracies are not familiar with the fact that there is a graphic novel out that the film is really based on, and that the film really didn't change anything in comparison to the novel.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edits to Triple H

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Ash sul! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bvids\.myspace\.com\b, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 00:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Ka50maks2005.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Ka50maks2005.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Donald Albury 10:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:YouTube_RostislavAlekseev.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:YouTube_RostislavAlekseev.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is either no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use, or else the rationale given is not valid. 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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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. MER-C 11:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Superpower & OR

The sources you used do not use the term "superpower". Please read: WP:SYNTH. You argue that these characteristics cause Russia to be a potential superpower. This is OR. Only if reliable and notable sources directly make the relation between these characteristics and the potential of superpower, they are not OR. Sijo Ripa 12:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If these are very obvious, I think it won't be to hard to find notable and reliable sources that claim that these make Russia a "potential superpower". So it is much better to include these sources.
Practice has shown that this rule must be applied rigorously. Otherwise, everyone starts to add power characteristics to each country as has happened in the past - while these characteristics were all true, almost none of the sources was related to being a "potential superpower". Sijo Ripa 12:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Massive POV editing at 4th generation jet fighter

I looked at the situation as you asked, and it's definitely a mess. There's some good edits being added, but a bunch of POV as well, and large deletions of text. I'm not an admin, but I posted an urgent help notice on WP:AIR. I considered WP:AN/I, but it's not clear they're certain vandals, and in this case it would be a great help to have an admin familiar with the issues get involved. I would recommend not trying to "fix" it right now – they can out-edit you. If necessary, we can revert it all and then mine the new contributions for material of value. Thanks for the head's up! Askari Mark (Talk) 00:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, I don't have the time to deal with it. My inclination is to wait until the two IP guys blow off their steam, capture what good material they may have added, and then revert the mess, incorporate the keepers, and move on. You have to keep in mind that many people have complained that this article isn't very good - so they very well might end up doing no worse. The key problem is that the article really isn't "encyclopedic" from a Wikipedia viewpoint in that it's next to impossible to find useful citations. Since I am one of the leading experts on the subject, I could easily write a fine article on the subject, but it would be all OR because the definitions have come about chiefly through a loose, informal consensus. That's what has kept me from giving the article a complete overhaul. In any case, I'd recommend that in the interim you just focus on improving articles that aren't being messed up. We, not trollish IPs, are in this for the long run. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 03:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SeverstalAvto logo.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:SeverstalAvto logo.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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 06:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Moskvich logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Moskvich logo.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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 03:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:UABC merger.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:UABC merger.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 '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion long over

All meaningful and cited discussions on the Kargil War are already long over and you may note that it has been peer-reviewed and attained the WP:FA status. Unless you can provide specific lines which are POV and without a reliable source, I'm afraid the other editors on Wikipedia would say the same. Therefore I'm removing the tag. thanks. --Idleguy 02:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essex discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals

Description 
A project for the county of Essex, England
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Chris 05:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Comments

Maybe you could try Category:Wikipedians from Essex and also place notices e.g. at Wikipedia:WikiProject England. Simply south (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mtv russia.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mtv russia.PNG. 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 '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:MiG logo web.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:MiG logo web.gif. 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 '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)