User talk:Big Brother 1984

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Big Brother 1984       Archives  2006 2006

[edit] Hey BB

Bout time you showed up around here. I see you've been picking up the pace of editing recently. These days there are plenty of admins, so the requirements are subtly higher than they use to be. Mainly you should do things that admins do, on a consistent basis and in a friendly manner. (by this I mean, janitor tasks like counter vandalism, and/or more boring stuff like categorizing, AfD's and other backlogs) Also invest yourself in some content disputes to understand and apply Wikipolicy in moving an article and discussion forward. Finally, don't seek adminship. If you've done these things for a few months; this not only increases your edit count but shows your commitment to Wikipedia; and someone will nominate you and/or you'll find adminship isn't a big deal.

Oh yeah, did I miss anything interesting at newspeak? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Big Brother 1984! 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. Prodego ^talk 23:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

I was reverting vandalism myself. I just didn't see that the vandalism I was reverting reverted back to... more vandalism. I didn't put it there, so please remove the warning. Thank you. Galactor213 03:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I've done the same to other people in the past. Thank you for being quick with it though, and with a bit of scrounging I think I found the non-vandalized one, so it's finally clean. Galactor213 03:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This just happened to me as well, on the Jesse Jackson page. I had removed the offensive line, but recieved a warning. How did I trip the flag?

[edit] Googolplex

The 1920 date is consistent with Edward Kasner. The confusion in some Web sites is between the creation of the term and its first appearance in print. See Talk:Googol. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's OK, I had changed it — I was just explaining why. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User:Timeoutmom.com

Wow, that lady's bound and determined to get her linkspam inserted into as many articles as possible (check out her other "contributions"). Apparently she's on a mission from GOD as well. :) She just kept working away, ignoring my warnings, one edit after another -- so I'm glad you turned up to lend a hand.

PS - Nice collection of quotes on your user page!

Regards, Cgingold 17:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you beat me to it -- that proselytizing was over the top! But I'm sure you understand, there's no way to hold back when you have a direct line to you-know-who. :) Cgingold 17:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi I am timeoutmom.com. I do have to say in my defense that I honestly did not know it was not allowed for me to to contribute to articles such as the christianity one and then put myself down as a reference in that one since I have information about local christian conferences specifically for moms. Also, I do have an informational page regarding toddler time-outs and present these at local parenting groups and conferences and submit articles to parenting web-sites and have time-out resources - recommended reading and of course the time-out animals. I do apologize for upsetting the Wikipedia World. I obviously wasn't trying to hide anything or be secretive since i signed up with a log on as my web-site name. So, sorry i did not know i was violating your community. I received several NASTY and rude e-mails which is distressing to me. It would have been better for your community to have an e-mail that is more friendly and education focused - since that is the gist of this web-site. Example: "Hello ! Welcome to Wikipedia. We are glad you have joined our community. However, it has come to our attention that you are doing X (fill in the blank) and that this is something not allowed on Wikipedia. So, we did X (fill in the blank). Please go to X (fill in pages to go to) for more education and understanding about this site. If you have any questions, you may e-mail X (insert name)." So, this is something to consider before you start sending mean e-mails and bashing people. Think to yourself "Are you being helpful or harmful/hurtful?" I would categorize the e-mails/notifications I received as hurtful and mean and they simply could have been HELPFUL and educational. So, in your Wikipedia mission that you are on - consider that in your future communications and think about being INCLUSIVE.

[edit] Your test1 on 194.80.32.8

Hey Big Brother 1984, Regarding your test1 sent to the above account ([1]), I was just wondering if you sent an email to abuse AT lancaster.ac.uk as I noted in the talk page? Their servers send XFF information, so they can actually find the specific user responsible for the vandalism. Since they discussed with me in an attempt to get me to reverse a six month anon-only block I laid on this IP address, they naturally would like to find these guys and discipline them rather than risk another block.

If you haven't sent an email, I'll be happy to send one instead (I've already established some dialogue with one of their sysadmins, so I can make sure this one gets investigated).

--Deathphoenix ʕ 17:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's less my patience and more the result some off-wiki negotiations I held with a sysadmin. They pointed out the XFF and the fact that their abuse department should be contacted, and I undid a six month block I made in return (although personally, I'd rather just leave the IP blocked for six months so we don't have to waste time cleaning up vandalism). Thanks for letting me know, I'll send an email if someone else also lets me know that they didn't send an email. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] user warning templates

Hi. When using a user warning template, could you please specify which page you are mad at me about? It's hard to know what you think I did wrong when you don't say. You can add the page you think I vandalized to the template like this: {{test4-n | examplepage}}. Also, user warning templates should be substituted onto pages, not put there as template. You can subsitute templates like this: {{subst:test4-n}}. Thanks for your input. --24.235.229.208 20:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hehehe

Was Big Brother watching me??? I was just going to add that film to the Atheistic film category, when I noticed you did so seconds before me. Scary! I'm going to disable my webcam and mic on my computer now! :P --P-Chan 06:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Ok, then I'm glad I wasn't dressed as a total slob today!  :P Evangelical Atheist? Before I googled the term, I almost thought you were an Atheist that went to church or something. I'm an agnostic/atheist myself. (Thank god for atheists!) --P-Chan 06:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Video card, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. . Subtle vandalism like [2] will not be tolerated. Superm401 - Talk 08:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This warning is not an error. If you click the diff it will be clear that your edit added the text "fuck u" with the edit summary "(Revert vandalism by 61.88.131.154)" 61.88.131.154 removed that text, and you added it back. That is subtle vandalism, but hopefully unintentional. Thus, I left you a (possibly over-severe warning), but did even consider a block. Superm401 - Talk 02:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No big deal. Just don't do it again. :) Superm401 - Talk 16:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Sbarro logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sbarro logo.gif. 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 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I made on comment on the image page about this being different than Sbarro3 image. Please... comment? gren グレン 18:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sickles high school

i removed the prod template added expand tag instead also i thought i would leave this information as well User:Silensor/Schools this is not be me bye another user which agree with does not mean you well i just thought you would like this to read sorry to bother youOo7565 18:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC) User:Silensor

This is an excerpt from Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. It represents my beliefs on why verifiable articles about educational institutions should be retained on Wikipedia, regardless of their shape or size.

• 1. m:eventualism
• 2. Schools are important public institutions and should probably be written about somewhere, even when they cannot sustain an article on their own.

2. a. Presently people do create school articles containing neutral, verifiable information and it is difficult to delete them, even though many think these articles are too trivial for Wikipedia.

2. b. Rather than striving for an elusive consensus to delete a given school article, some feel it is always preferable and usually takes much less energy to merge the text of the article into an article about a suitable habitation or administrative unit: a city, county or state, or a school district of local education authority of other school system, while taking care not to delete the information contained in the article. The article itself should be replaced by a redirect. (note: this particular argument for merges is not supported by all who favor keeping school articles, see #Merge and #Don't Merge).

• 3. Those who advocate the deletion of schools sometimes use an argument to the effect that a school that doesn't have some special attribute--apart from being an institution of learning--has no identity and shouldn't be in Wikipedia.

• 3. a. This is a case of special pleading; there is no Wikipedia policy *requirement that corresponds to this, it's just an ad hoc condition constructed to justify opposition to school articles.
• 3. b. Each school is different from every other school--a look at the latest school report card or HMI inspection report of any school should be enough to establish this truism. Someone who looks up the Oratory School would not want to see a link to the report card for Mount Tabor High School, and by providing readers with a way of finding out about individual schools, including what independent or government inspectors have to say about their teaching standards, Wikipedia performs a useful encyclopedic function.
• 3. c. Schools are not donut shops, traffic lights, or telephone books, they're where we spend a large proportion of our waking lives, where we learn to be adults, gain skills and make friends. They play a large part in determining what kind of society we have. Schools are also community gathering points, where many students and former students can share common experiences and knowledge - a central theme to Wikipedia.

• 4. It is argued that wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, and that school articles only serve a narrow, local audience. However, Wikipedia is not paper and can afford to serve all audiences of reasonable size. Instead of removing material, technical means can be found to make general topics more prominent to researchers, such as rating more obscure pages "of little general interest" and demoting them in search results.
• 5. Schools are an excellent entry point for new Wikipedians. In reviewing their contributions, we can educate and inform them about third party verifiability and NPOV as they help build the common knowledge base. A good experience collaboratively editing something "close to home" will encourage long term involvement in a positive way.
• 6. It has been said that school articles are not maintainable because, for instance, every time a school headmaster or principal changes it should be edited to accommodate the change. There are two counters with that argument:

• 6. a. the historical view

From the historical view, that fact about a headmaster's appointment can be recorded as a historical detail: "In 1961 Jeff Smith was appointed head of Portnoy Boys". A later editor may add that in 1971 Jeff Smith retired and Veronica Spice replaced him. In any case this is verifiable information about the school (school head appointments are public information) and also has historical value.

• 6. b. the rejection of a trivial argument.

From the point of view of the rejection of trivial argument, the question of who is and is not the head of a school is a fact without which the school article can survive. If maintaining current staff information were considered to be problematic, the pragmatic solution of removing information about current staff solves the problem without removing other information about the school, including (in most countries) links to public sources of information about schools which go back years or even decades and give extremely detailed public information about the school and its performance relative to national expectations and to other schools in the district, region, and country. And, of course, information about who was the head teacher at the time of the inspection.

• 6. c. Wikipedia's editors are its readers.

We attract readers only if we provide something of interest to them. Readers become and remain editors, only if we allow them to improve and create articles of importantance and of interest to them and others. Wikipedia is often more up to date than other encyclopedia's with far fewer articles, precisely because we're so open to growth (which means a larger number of active editors). Keeping every school article doesn't mean instantly making one for every school today, so the editor count can grow with the growth of the article count. The fact there are 6 billion people in the world doesn't make it hard to maintain school articles, it means we have that many more people to recruit editors from, if and only if we provide good encyclopedic content they are interested in. Those who are interested in editing schools are as likely as anybody else to help out in other areas of Wikipedia.

• 7. Jimbo Wales said people should relax and accommodate those who write high school articles, as long as they're not mass-inserting a ton of one line stubs. [1]
• 8. There are multitudes of US city articles which could be said to be "trivial" , and one may say: 'well those cities usually have more people in them than a school'. Yet, Perth, Towner County, North Dakota, for example, only has a population of 13 people. So why include small cities over schools?
• 9. The determination of schools accepted and not should be consistent across the board.

-- Oo7565

i thought you added the prod for delation not afd look back at history but anyway if i from afd sorry about that did not mean toOo7565 18:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

sent it to afd for youOo7565 19:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note!!

Hi, I reverted the edits you have done to the state terrorism SriLanka article for several reasons..

• You have quoted from an extremely pro-LTTE site..genocide of tamils, is a site full of ,what we call crap.And wikipedia don' need crap,do we ??
• you have removed the statement made by the forensic experts..I add it back
• Legal procedure in SL is not smooth..Its very complex and takes a lot of time to proceed a case..It was the same here..
• And till 1995 this area was under control of LTTE. so we don't even know the founded bodies were caused by army..it could well be the LTTE too..
• GOSL started investigations in 1999..If you want I can show you the news-paper

articles. thanks--Iwazaki 13:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

without addressing a single issue i have raised here , you have reverted the article back to your POV ... please once again read points I have raised here..

Forensic team have clearly reached a unanimous decision that there are no such graves as originally alleged by the convicted prisoner Somaratne Rajapakse and others convicted of the Krishanthy Kumaraswamy rape and murder case ..And why would you delete that ?? The whole episode is a hoax,just like this.. And didnt i tell you that the legal process in SL for any case ,is complex and slow ?? Do you expect the GOSL to file charges against ,accused in a week or two ?? And thanks for taking an general interest on my contributions..Yes,as a SriLankan I'm genuinely interested at my country,and having seeing a lot of POV targeted against my country, I decided to spend more time to make things look more neutral.. finally ,no one is whitewashing this..Why would anyone do such a thing, when the whole thing did not exist at all !! doesn't make sense at all,does it ? Unless you an come up with proofs, that so called 600 plus missing people ended up in the chemmani grave, there is absolutely no point discussing this matter with you.anyway thanks for the interest taken on this issue.--Iwazaki 03:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excuse me?

Why are you leaving me notes about WP:NPOV on my talk page without any explanation? Seems a bit rude. BabyDweezil 15:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Lamar S. Owens Jr., requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 18:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a suggestion

I saw your edits in Sri Lanka related articcles, the actual article is undergoing major edits, your help will be appreciated[3]RaveenS 21:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sin rapper article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sin_%28rapper%29

This article was deleted after I presented you with evidence that you agreed matched wikipedia criteria. Im very dissapopinted because me and othes have put much work on it.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mistabusta (talk • contribs) 09:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] An aside

Well, I noticed on the HoC article talk page you seem really itching to talk about this historicity of Jesus. Now I have ducked this, basically because (as I have said) I don't think it matters what we think on the matter, hence there is no point for debate, only discussing secondary sources. But I think that, even though this is the right approach, I still feel a little odd slinking away from the matter. So I thought I'd come here and give an oppertunity for you to tell me just what all it is you think on the matter, if you wish. If you don't, then that's fine. Cheers. Lostcaesar 08:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] okay dude

ill stop but hey i was just poking fun at my friend. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.25.15.84 (talk) 06:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] A favor

I created Assassinations and murders during the Sri Lankan civil war article by merging two articles, one was Attributed to the LTTE and the other to the government. Both were unstable and always had the tinge of POV over them and were cause of lot of edit wars. So I merged them and created this to minimize the conflict. When you have time, can you look over it please ? Thanks RaveenS 15:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi...uh, I'm not entirely sure what happened to my account. I assume that maybe someone caught my log-in at school. Sorry for the inconvience. -Locke Yggdrasill

[edit] Advert

Thanks for the edit on The Silent Fall about the advertisement nature of the wording. I've tried to clean that up, so hopefully it works for you now.--Jimbabwean 23:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All Star United AfD

Please do note vote on/modify AfDs after they've been closed. Thank you.superapathyman 03:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "DST all year around" change should be reverted

In your 05:31, 14 February 2007 edit to the Daylight saving time page you created a new section "DST all year round" that contains old text that is now redundant. For example, there are now two independent mentions of Iceland observing DST, and two references to Johnston's Daily Telegraph article. In both cases, the new "DST all year round" section is inferior to the text that already existed in the previous version.

The daylight saving page is not the right place to catalog many jurisdictions that observe DST year round: one example should suffice and Iceland is a good candidate since it is about 1.5 hours ahead of local mean time. The right place for a more extensive catalog is Daylight saving time around the world.

Also, the claim that there were more road deaths of school children is merely a vague "recollection" of Johnston that contradicts the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. This recollection is quite possibly incorrect and in any event is fairly weak as evidence goes, which is why that claim should not be present in this Wikipedia entry.

Please reconsider this change. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.127.71.78 (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

		The Original Barnstar
		Hello Big Brother, this barnstar is awarded for your effort in trying to bring neutrality to Sri Lankan conflict related articles RaveenS 17:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Per your reasoned comments, I invite you to join mediation should you find the occasion to do so.Proabivouac 21:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

well said. I have been having a headache about this debate for weeks now. Anyways, thanks for bringing up what so desperately needs to be said. --Hojimachong^talk_con 23:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your AIV report

Thank you for making a report in respect of User:124.106.236.234 on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Removing and reporting vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them again to the AIV noticeboard. Thanks. Sandstein 06:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Your input is requested at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Suggestion. --Hojimachong^talk_con 01:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Suggestion_.28untainted.29

You voiced your opinion in the original straw poll which has caused some confusion. Please do the same in a new version, Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Suggestion_.28untainted.29, which should be clear and allow us to better assess consensus. gren グレン 22:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project Implicit

I found the link to Project Implicit on your talk page quite interesting. It provided a nice activity for a monday afternoon. --Hojimachong^talk_con 23:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] India Pale Ale

Could you explain why you reverted my recent edits? I thought they added useful information and arranged the material more readably in the correct sections. -- Rameses 09:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reversing your earlier decision - it's refreshing to find someone open-minded enough to reconsider their actions. -- Rameses 09:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Khalid Al-Thawadi

I've removed the speedy deletion tag from the above article. While the subject might not be notable, the article does assert notability in a reasonable way. You may wish to list it at WP:AFD instead, to get a broader consensus on the article. Thanks for your time and your hard work reporting these articles - even though I'm not deleting this particular one, your efforts are very much appreciated. Kafziel ^Talk 13:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the author of the article. I'm an admin going through the speedy deletions and this one just doesn't qualify. There's no appeals process for that, and you shouldn't put the tag back on; just send it to AfD. Or you can put a prod tag on it and of course I won't remove it, and I'll be happy to delete it in a few days if there are no objections. Thanks! Kafziel ^Talk 20:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second opinion - Neutrality Sanity check

If you have time can you kindly look over Mirusuvil mass grave article that I created and let me know about any neutrality issues. Thanks RaveenS 22:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need your response

Talk:Assassinations_and_murders_attributed_to_the_LTTE#redirect please respond on this ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 14:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March 2007

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Linz sisters. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. Copyright violations are unacceptable and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Your original contributions are welcome. Real96 09:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
You have now violated Wikipedia's copyright policy, by adding copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, after being told not to do so. Copyright violations are unacceptable and persistent violators will be blocked. Original contributions are welcome, however any further copyright violations may result in your account being blocked. Do not recreate deleted copyvio articles. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 10:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where's the fire?

Take your own advice and chillax for a day or two. I've been in your situation before, where being right, or at least partially right makes you just want to fix things quickly; and being unable to do that on a Wiki which is designed to be quick and offer immediate gratification can be frustrating.

From my initial read this situation escalated because you re-added copyvio material. Now were some new pages monitors/admins overzealous, sure, but you initiated the copyvio; they were simply doing clean up work. The entire situation could have been avoided if someone, anyone, simply stubified the article with original writing. An article will come of this eventually. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Challenge of Qur'an

Hey there, thought you'd get a real kick out of this one. This editor leaves User:Timeoutmom in the dust! :) Add your name to the AFD if you're so inclined. Cgingold 13:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

The following article is being peer reviewed. see here Your input will be appreciated RaveenS 01:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Zelda 1 Princess link.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Zelda 1 Princess link.gif. 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 05:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Mayor McCheese.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Mayor McCheese.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. 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 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 23:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Rocky Rococo.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Rocky Rococo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. 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 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 04:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Barry_White_-_Luciano_Pavarotti.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Barry_White_-_Luciano_Pavarotti.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 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Donkey Kong 3 for NES screenshot.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Donkey Kong 3 for NES screenshot.png. 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. CountingPine 16:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Aqua teen steve.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Aqua teen steve.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 (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kelly Foods, Inc.

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Kelly Foods, Inc., suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Kelly Foods, Inc.. Jfire (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for arbitration involving you.

A request for arbitration involving you has been proposed. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Austrian_economics Zenwhat (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Kelly Foods, Inc.

An editor has nominated Kelly Foods, Inc., an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Foods, Inc. and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Captain_morgan.gif

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)