User talk:Cmprince

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Cmprince, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Infrogmation 07:04, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Rose Page

You copyedited the presidential crisis section of the rose page and changed the meaning a little bit. The way I worded it was intended to be fair to Midgley while at the same time recognize the student's disagreements. For instance, I thought it was necessary to emphasize that not all students were against his leadership. I also wanted to point out that the votes of no confidence from the SGA was unanimous, but not from the faculty. Finally, I said that there were people who felt he the issues stemmed from him following Hulbert. I realized I forgot to cite this when I was making the edits, next time can you include a "citation needed" tag instead of deleting it? Thanks! 24.22.5.172 18:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Why did you delete Mr. Hatfield's name from the distinguished alumni?!?! I know it may be a while since you've been back to school but he did form Calix, and sold it for billions. I hope you don't hold any resentment, but I'm not sure why you found it necessary to delete his name from the distinguished alumni, he did donate money to build an entire theater and arts building. You aren't the only one who graduated from Rose...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.112.152.87 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 10 May 2007

Hello there. Ah, to be back in the 137.112... I removed Hatfield because the criteria for notability has to be more than merely being wealthy. There is no Michael Hatfield page on Wikipedia, and he's not even the most famous or notable Michael Hatfield, at least measuring by Google. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but let's wait a while to see if he does anything significant with his money or talent that warrants mention in an encyclopedia, in connection to RHIT. Cmprince 12:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: OR

Hey Cmprince,
I looked at the list on that page you gave me to see what constitutes orignal research... but I'm pretty sure what i did wasn't original research. Though the source didn't say directly that Carmel is the largest, by comparing enrollment to the other schools in the list (it's a list of the high schools in IN having more than 2,000 students enrolled in 2006-2007), Carmel has the most students. By the way, on the source you have to view each school's page separatley... after the page loads, there's a grey box and one line says "Enrollment 2006-2007".

Thanks,
Heyhey Hey 20:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RC patrol

Heya, good to see a new face on RC patrol. You can use {{del}} instead of {{delete}} though, saves a little typing. If all goes to plan you'll soon even be able to use {{d}}, but not yet. --fvw* 18:15, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

[edit] USA Portal

I'm not sure if you're still around but if you are then can you please update Portal:USA. It is in urgent need of updating. Deano 09:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] airport stubs

FYI. There is a {{US-airport stub}} template. Vegaswikian 19:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Connecticut

Wow, you are going great guns. Thank you. Good question on climate. I remembered climate zones in a world atlas, found it on my shelf, and was then able to link to an appropriate wiki article: Koppen_climate_classification#GROUP_D:_Continental.2Fmicrothermal_climate. Jd2718 19:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Smile

I think you are now in the early lead for "best edit summary of 2007"

Your comment made my day. Thanks. Unschool 05:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please check this article

Is the "immersion lithography" better at explaining now? Thanks in advance.61.61.254.9 04:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy

Great to have you come into the article.

There has been a debate primarily among 4 users.
We need another voice/input.
Your contribution seems well put.
Please - do not disappear - we, and Wikipedia - need you!!!

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 18:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hot 8 DYK

Thanks! I knew somebody out there must have known more about this group. Cmprince 00:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm glad I could help. However, like most things I write about, I didn't know a damn thing about the Hot 8 Brass Band. I just used my web browser and found what I could. House of Scandal 00:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK!

Updated DYK query On January 13, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hot 8 Brass Band, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! Nishkid64 01:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] image source data

Hi SpLoT, I tagged the image Image:EN Worldwide coups d'état.PNG with {{references}}. Do you have a source for it that can be mentioned in the image page? Cmprince 06:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The information in the map comes from many different sources; see Talk:Coup d'état#Worldwide coups map. Thanks. - SpLoT (*C*+u+g) 08:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World Cup

Yeah, you're right - I failed to take into account the game just finished. I've reverted so much over-eager shading over the last couple of days, I guess I had a brain explosion. Hesperian 23:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nova Scotia TCH

The province of Nova Scotia does not use the Provincial Highway Shields for Nova Scotia leg of the Trans-Canada Highway. Cavenbatalk to me 02:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact they do. With the only difference being the numbers. I've contacted the creator of the image I linked to no avail. It would be good if we could have some TCH (NS) signs. Cavenbatalk to me 01:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, I have a issue with it. The colour is too dull, it's more of an Islamic Green or Green. Otherwise, GREAT WORK! Cavenbatalk to me 04:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
If you haven't already remade it Forest green is the right colour. Cavenbatalk to me 04:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Perfect. Cavenbatalk to me 04:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, most of the transparency should be white: Maple leaf, ribbons... Although this is not very important. Cavenbatalk to me 04:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, but it would be good to have one similar to Image:tch.png with no province and no numbers (or number sign in the case of Nova Scotia). Cavenbatalk to me 04:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
One issue, there is already an image named Image:TCH.png on Wikipedia, meaning that the Commons image cannot be used directly. Cavenbatalk to me 04:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I'll look at a real one later today, and tell you then. Cavenbatalk to me 11:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Upon a closer look, there is no dash... Cavenbatalk to me 20:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We could use a set of NS Route signs... (ie Nova Scotia Route 4)[1] Cavenbatalk to me 01:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference

I fail to see why you removed the comments regarding the SCAC's relative lack of success as an athletic conference on the national level. It is a proven fact that with very few exceptions the SCAC's athletic programs are not national powers, and that is reflected by the paucity of national championships. It is also a fact that conferences such as the NESCAC and the President's Athletic Conference have earned many more championships despite even more strict academic admission requirements and higher costs to attend. I put that paragraph in when I created the page and it has survived intact until you decided to cut that out. I am a graduate of a SCAC institution and suppose you must be too, because nobody else would give a damn. If you can't deal with the truth of the situation then leave the article alone. If you want to refute the basic premise then state some facts to back your position up. Five championships in over 25 years certainly supports my premise. 68.94.230.174 04:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the text again for the reasons stated in the edit summary and on the talk page. Please take your concerns with the article's content there. Cmprince 04:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Virginia Tech debate

Hey, I don't know if you're still following this insanity (discussion's way too big to find any specific users anymore), but the admins moved in and ruled concensus in our favour on the Glock 19 article. Looks like this'll be wrapped up really soon. About bloody time, eh? It'll finally be back to making constructive additions to Wikipedia. Gamer Junkie 20:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Reading further, it appears you've changed your position on the matter. Oh well, each to their own. In any case, we'll all be back to our regular edits soon. Cheers. Gamer Junkie 22:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, that's cool, I get that. It's a good compromise, but in my experience, admins don't compromise, and they're running the show now. They'll stomp the P22 argument into the ground just like the Glock 19 argument and hear nothing else. Frankly, I'll just be glad to get it over with. Gamer Junkie 22:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walther P22 disputes continues

Hello. The discussion of whether to include a mention of the Virginia Tech massacre at the Walther P22 article continues. Earlier, a compromise was reached to include a mention of the Viriginia Tech massacre in a "See Also" section of this article, but now that idea is being debated. Care to weigh in? The Walther P22 is being discussed here. Griot 16:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of 2007 Swiss incursion into Liechtenstein

I've nominated 2007 Swiss incursion into Liechtenstein, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that 2007 Swiss incursion into Liechtenstein satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Swiss incursion into Liechtenstein and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of 2007 Swiss incursion into Liechtenstein 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. Sandstein 06:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heim theory AFD

If there's a prior AFD for an article, you have to name the second AFD something slightly different the second time around or you accidentally include the first one. Another admin fixed it before I could, but just so you know in the future... Georgewilliamherbert 21:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:RoseSeal.gif

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:RoseSeal.gif. 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 10:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please assume good faith

Hi Chairboy. As a bit of advice from some random guy on the internet (so take it for what you will), it would be better if you assumed good faith, not just on article edits but also on processes like uploading images. I've been here for years, and I haven't usually put fair use rationales on fair use images. It hardly seemed necessary, since the specific fair use templates provided more than enough rationale for the specific articles to which they apply. Now that there is a drive for specificity (which I don't think everyone yet understands, let alone agrees with), a lot of people are being caught off guard. Please stop threatening people with banishment, when most people really have no idea that they have done anything to offend a process. Cmprince 13:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Howdy! I assume good faith with each and every edit, which is why I so strongly urge the folks I've been speaking with Re: their improper utilization of fair-use rationales to familiarize themselves with the policy. Wikipedia is put in danger every time media is pushed up with a bad fair-use tag, both legally (because of the wacky copyright laws) and ethically (because of how it flies in the face of our charter to be a FREE encyclopedia). You don't appear to be aware of the fact that fair-use rationales cannot be machine generated/templated, that there _must_ be a specific rationale for each use. I strongly urge you to familiarize yourself with the applicable policies immediately, and I thank you for your time. If there's anything else I can do to help you avoid endangering the project, please let me know. We're all in this together, and we all have a responsibility to do our part to keep Wikipedia safe. I hope you'll join me. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Mark Morrison

Hey, Could you please keep an eye on this page please, i will try my best to help, as someone keeps changing info, the reason is MM is trying to get a US album release & wants the last album & three singles info deleted. Thank You.

Dated: 28-09-07; In "good faith" can you leave the Wikipedia page, as you are potentially causing internal problems. There are no legal disputes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MLFAM98 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I find it bizarre that anyone could think of deleting that page, as its completely obvious the notability of this individual. Thanks for the save and heads up. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] years and decades

Has there been a prior discussion of the deletion of these pages? If not, i decline to delete them. I pass no judgment about whether it is right or not to have them, just that I am not comfortable removing them without consensus. DGG (talk)

[edit] RFC

Very sorry - I don't know how I did that. You are right - I was only intending to change the Josh Wolf description to what I thought was more neutral. Did not mean to step on that other entry and don't know how I managed to do it. I've reinstated it. Thanks for catching it - it was unintentional. Tvoz |talk 21:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's try consensus

Instead of engaging in an WP:Edit war over the Fairfield County, Connecticut article, why not just let me do what I said I'd do on the talk page and let it grow into a fuller history of the county. I need time to get to the library and get some books I can use. OK? And it is Fairfield County centered, not Connecticut centered. Noroton 00:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for help

Thanks for helping out after I flubbed title of Eric Etheridge page. I did not know how to fix. Tom Wood 03:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re Abidjan

Thanks for this. As you might have noticed, I am fairly new to Wikispace, so do tend to stumble a bit. With the article on Abidjan, I wonder if you might be able to help there.


I picked this up from "articles requested for trasnlation" project for french to english, which was made on 11/07. however, I too noticed that there already existed an article on Abidjan in english. Unfortuntely, the user who made the request seems to be unregistered ans so I cannot confirm what they were looking for from the translation - as in complete rewrite in english, or campare and improve.


A user who responded to my help request yesterday suggested I do the translation and submit it to someone to check against existing english version to compare, and they can decide which is the better of the two...


I don't mind (well, not much anyway!) :-) if the one I am doing is deleted/not kept. Since I am a bit scared of creating a new article just yet, this might end up being good practive for me in the long run!


Any suggestions/input to this idea is welcome. Please advise whether it is the right thing to do....


Once again, thanks for the subpage part....

--Mayalekhni 03:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR on Fairfield County, Connecticut

You've violated WP:3RR on the Fairfield County, Connecticut article. Please change it back immediately or be reported.

19:28, July 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Fairfield County, Connecticut (→History - whitespace; also, this article is about Fairfield County, not the state-wide Klan presence) 19:26, July 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) Fairfield County, Connecticut (→Ku Klux Klan in Fairfield County - distill to the essential facts)

21:30, July 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) m Fairfield County, Connecticut (Reverted 1 edit by Noroton to last revision by Cmprince; Sorry, but this *is* CT centered, and there does appear to be consensus on talk.. using TW) (top)

21:30, July 12, 2007 (hist) (diff) m Fairfield County, Connecticut (Reverted 1 edit by Noroton to last revision by Cmprince; Sorry, but this *is* CT centered, and there does appear to be consensus on talk.. using TW) (top) Noroton 03:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop this nonsense Noroton. The 19:26 and 19:28 edits were not reverts. Cmprince 03:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's review the history: I'm trying to work out a consensus with other editors. You come in, not having participated in the discussion, and toss everything around. I refer you to the talk page and revert, pending conclusion of the discussion. You revert back with abrupt and snide comments then go to Wikiproject Connecticut. I remind you of 3RR, you call my reminder "nonsense". Then you call me uncivil.

First, as soon as you realized there was an ongoing discussion, you should have stepped back on the article page and engaged in the discussion on the talk page. Give the other parties time to see what I wrote and respond to it. Actually look at what I wrote (before you came to the discussion, especially my last comment just before you came in) and actually respond to that. That's called building consensus, not railroading through your own edits. I'm more than happy to try to build consensus. When do you propose to start trying? Noroton 04:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I called it nonsense because it's bad-faith to call my edits a reversions just because you didn't like them. As you said, I just came in. I read the talk page, saw the discussion, agreed with the consensus and was bold with my edits. I didn't remove any content, I just moved it off the article which everyone (excepting yourself) seemed to think was a good idea. And yes, having read your contributions and your made up charge of violating 3RR, I don't think you're being terribly civil. Cmprince 04:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it isn't bad faith, it's in the language of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#What is a revert?:
A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors.
First one you did comes under the definition. It's not bad faith, it's my view of what the facts actually are. Being bold with the edits doesn't entitle you to run roughshod over consensus building. See paragraph 2 of WP:BOLD: "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is one popular way to use the "Be Bold" approach responsibly, especially if other editors have questions over your ideas or revert your edit." Hell no, I'm not being terribly civil, my feet have just been stepped on. I'm going to bed. Please review my concerns on the Fairfield County talk page, my concerns in the edit summaries of my reverts at the Connecticut history article and consider it from my point of view, and if you do, I'll do the same thing for you. And if you want to see what an edit war (that may still not be over) REALLY looks like, take a look at the talk page (from top to bottom) and the history page of List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut. You might also review the many edits over the months of the Klan section and how I've had to defend it again and again and again and again. I really try hard to come to consensus. And I really fight when I think I'm being bullied. Your choice. Noroton 04:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I feel the same

We did get off on the wrong foot. Thanks for your note just now. You sent it just as I deleted the section from the Fairfield County article. I'll look at the Connecticut article as well and restore what you put there if it isn't there already. If I or someone else gets up a history article for the county, that's where it belongs. Thanks again. Noroton 15:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Josh_Wolf#Request_for_Comment:_Josh_Wolf_Profession_Viewpoints Josh Wolf RfC

Hi Cmprince, thanks for your comment on the RfC. I'm wondering if you can take another look at it because I'm trying to figure out if the court's viewpoint is significant enough to be mentioned in the lead. All of us agree that we should describe him as a journalist. The issue is that since there is no licensing for Journalists in the United States, calling him a journalist is a point of view and since there are viewpoints that do not consider him a journalist, if those viewpoints are significant, they should be mentioned. I'm arguing that since Josh's notability is only asserted by the court case, this should be mentioned in the lead along with the mention that he and some organizations have called him a journalist. You are right to say that the court case was to decide if the shield law should be applied but in order to determine this, they had to figure out if Josh fit the sate of California's statutory definition of a journalist. They ruled that he did not and therefore the shield law could not be applied. I'm not trying to change your mind here, just asking you to comment on whether or not the court's viewpoint was significant enough to be mentioned in the lead since we all already agree that he should also be called a journalist. Thanks! -- Pdelongchamp 15:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A little quick

I think 7 minutes is a little soon to judge whether or not an article is a candidate for speedy deletion. Am I going to have to expand this article right away? ...or do you think we can let it unfold. This theatre is significant because it is the first United Artists theatre built, and it is a landmark in the city of Chico today beacuse of the history of the diamond spire on top of it. Shall that sloppy last sentence suffice? Perhaps I could have some time to word smith and collect references? My goodness.

Gregbard 03:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see my reply on your talk page. Cmprince 03:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Energy portal review

Hi Cmprince. Knowing that you have an interest in an unconnected featured portal, I wondered if you might like to comment on the one I've been working on - energy portal - which is now under consideration for featured status. Compared to other candidates it has had relatively few people contributing to the debate, despite being up for discussion for 2 months. If you have time perhaps you would like to take a look? The candidate page can be found here. Gralo 18:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Vick

I reverted your edits to the lead in the [[Michael Vick] article. We have been working hard collaboratively to keep this section in compliance with the guidelines of WP:Lead. However, I feel that your edits trimmed too much content and left the result out of balance. Please feel free to discuss on the article's Talk page. Maybe we can still trim without leaving out important stuff. Mark in Historic Triangle 01:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop Deleting the People I research

You are really starting to get on my nerves. I am sorry you didn't learn manners at your Tier 4 college. User:WOverstreet —Preceding unsigned comment added by WOverstreet (talk • contribs) 16:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ernie Anastos

Thank you for being decisive. I saw the same plagiarism that you did but I really didn't know what to do with it. I thought about reverting but didn't want to go back too far. Perhaps I should've reworded some of the sentences but I left that for another day. --Roehl Sybing 12:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tasing incident

That's fair, but it's worth pointing out that immediately after you removed that section, people started adding the information inappropriately to the main article (the lead, etc.). I think it's best for now to let the section grow as part of the U-Florida article and then move it somewhere else in the future if it's faded from relevance, so I've re-added it. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 22:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grant Park Music Festival

You may have missed the distinction between a free concert and a free series of over 30 concerts per year for over 70 years. We went through this nominating the article at T:TDYK--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

 Please accept this invite to join the Red Sox WikiProject, a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with the Boston Red Sox. Simply click here to accept!

[edit] Problems with edits to Middletown, Connecticut

Hi there, I've been trying to add some information to the Middletown Connecticut article, good quality material, NPOV, solid references, etc. However, an individual with a state of Connecticut IP (Middletown IP?) keeps deleting the material. Tried to bring the user to the talk page, but very combative. Not sure how to proceed. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mondrian broadway boogie-woogie.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Mondrian broadway boogie-woogie.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 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 (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Awaiting the envelope . . .

Well, in this tragic year when the Writer's Strike is threatening to shut down so many awards shows, it's good to know that there are some awards that don't depend on unionized labor. Specifically, of course, I refer to the award for best edit summary for 2007. As a refresher, here was my nominated edit and summary.

So how did I do in the final standings? :-) Unschool (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ashley Treatment

Thanks. I don't know how I missed the sentence in the immediately preceding paragraph. Time to get new contacts. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hot8 logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Hot8 logo.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. BJBot (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord Frederick Wellesley

Twinkle forgot to finish this AfD for you; I fixed it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sup Tink

I have increased the length of the article so it no longer needs to be deleted

==

[edit] Headline text

==