User talk:David.Monniaux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives: 1, 2, 3

Psst, you left your comment on a subpage rather than my main talk page.

Anyway, I don't think we're hurting her because we're not plastering anything negative about her up on the internet. We're not repeating lewd comments, and just mentioning that they exist, she didn't like them, but they got her a lot of attention. We're focusing on the positives -- she holds records, she's among the best, etc. Who wouldn't want an article with a balanced, neutral (rather than tabloid) view of what happened to them be the first hit on google? An article that lists their accomplishments first, and explains fully her position on unwanted fame. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to think that we should apply the test of time. If this young lady is forgotten in six months, one year, then surely she should not have had an article. If she is not, and she becomes famous solely for her sports achievements, with this Internet thing being a footnote in her past, then we can always recreate an article. By that time, the passions will have calmed down. David.Monniaux 22:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

But, is the concern is about the article hurting her now, or in the future? Why not keep a good stub to give everyone the information around for those six months, and then we can come back calmly and people will have been informed in the meantime. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Author copyrights

David -- on your copyright question, I was referring to ordinary books you see in the book store, not scholarly books. For example, I just pulled off the shelf a great book on taxation, Perfetly Legal by David Cay Johhnston, and it was copyright 2003, David Cay Johnston, not the publisher. See what I mean?--Mantanmoreland 01:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Darn, I was thinking that maybe somebody had found a way to resist the great scholarly publishers. David.Monniaux 05:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Normally authors will go to smaller publishing houses if they want to retain their rights to a work, or, when they have a track record, negotiate giving partial rights to the publisher. With articles, the author almost always retains the rights and gives exclusive first publishing rights to a journal. A few, like our faculty journal, however, insists on acquiring all rights. Most of the time you can tell from the title page of a book. It's not that easy with journals. --CTSWyneken(talk) 11:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi David, have you check your email?

Hi David, have you checked your email the last couple days? -Doright 02:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have tried reaching the link you were mentioning and it seems it's gone from the Fordham site. Or did I copy'n'paste the link wrong? David.Monniaux 05:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi David, it may have been a copy'n'paste problem. All links are working. -Doright 16:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Carla Baron

Since you deleted this page maybe you would like to comment here Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Carla_Baron too. I think this article may well be a useful article, there are clearly many reliable sources discussing her work. The main problem here will be maintaining NPOV and due to the conflict of interest from the prinary author. David D. (Talk) 06:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I see you're already onto it. Thanks. David D. (Talk) 06:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, the present article is totally unsatisfactory (oscillates between a sub-stub and an oriented article, according to edit wars, it seems). Whenever the article is deleted, people recreate it to their needs. To top it, we get complaints on m:OTRS.

My proposed solution: wait until everyone calms down. We may then think about whether an entry about this person is appropriate. David.Monniaux 06:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It is more newbie war than revert war. For example, Carla deleted the category television personality when reverting back to her preferred initial version, that she has cached on her own computer, complete with orphan categories rather than keeping the appropriate category and editing further. Deleting the redundant links and the myspace link, which i did do, should not be regarded as revert warring either. Clean up would be a better description. Once Carla has a better idea of the guidelines here we may be able to unprotect and actuallly get an interesting and balanced article. If other users have any interest, that is. David D. (Talk) 07:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for your expedient and authoritative efforts in protecting the integrity of my page, David.Monniaux - Carla Baron Psychic profiler 18:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV violation and cover-up of criticism by Carla Baron

(Copied from BLP Noticeboard (diff), since she likes to delete criticism. )

Carla Baron, this matter involves an obvious attempt to cover-up criticism of yourself. Such coverups aren't allowed here unless the information is libelous or undocumented. Articles here include criticism. Your misuse of this BLP Noticeboard will not succeed and has only brought more attention to your agenda, which is to keep criticism out of the article.

This documented criticism needs to be included:

I suspect there are other third party sources that can also be used to bring balance to the article. If there are issues with the quality (RS, V) of those sources, that is one matter, but covering up criticism violates NPOV, and there is plenty of criticism out there!

Carla, what has happened here is that you have become the victim of Wikipedia's "Law of Unintended Consequences":

Unintended consequences.
If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, or your company, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels; we will not delete it simply because you don't like it. Any editor may add material to it within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually; more than one user has created an article only to find himself presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about. Either edit neutrally or don't edit at all. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable.

This applies to all articles and to any subject, including pet ideas or favorite singer, regardless of who started the article. We need to cover the subject from all angles, and NPOV requires that both sides of the story are presented, so criticism is included. Many think they can write an article presenting a subject in the best light possible, only to find they have opened a can of worms and Pandora's box itself. Once the article is started, all kinds of negative things also become part of the article. So attempts to promote something often end up back-firing.

As we have often seen here, attempts to cover-up documented criticism only results in more unwanted attention and even better referenced criticisms being added to the article in question. We aren't interested in your idea of "truth", but in NPOV coverage of all aspects of the subject. Hagiographic articles are fine in the media or your own website, but are totally inappropriate here.

Your proper role here (since you have a conflict of interest) is to ensure that obvious libel or undocumented criticisms are corrected, and that is best done by participating at the article's talk page and convincing other editors to help you do it if they can be convinced by your arguments. If that doesn't work, then you can use this board.

The article should be restored, including the criticism. This attempt to violate NPOV and misuse this board should back-fire big. -- Fyslee/talk 21:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I'm not Carla Baron. She's female, I'm male, and all that. David.Monniaux 17:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to have confused you. I'm well aware you're not Carla. I was just copying it here as information to you of what was going on and why the article needs to be restored. She's gaming the system and shouldn't be helped. Restoring the article will also restore Wikipedia's integrity in the face of a blatant attempt to defeat NPOV by manipulating what we "publish" here and by stifling well sourced criticism. We need to be careful we don't become unwitting "accessories to the crime." I'm sure your intentions were good, but she was playing you and others. It happens all the time, and when we discover it we need to take appropriate action to defeat such attempts. -- Fyslee/talk 21:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sarkozy photo

Hello - I'm not sure what you're referring to as I haven't uploaded any pictures of Sarkozy (I did change the lead picture for this one Image:Nicolas Sarkozy - Meeting in Toulouse for the 2007 French presidential election 0389 2007-04-12 cropped.JPG two days ago?). Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keane (film)

What are you doing dude? Firstly you say "citation needed" on two comments that are fully references, are you just playing games? AND why the hell have you deleted the screenshots??? You stated that the movie maker have not released the pictures for press use, well it may have escaped your attention Wikipedia is not the press!!! And how do you know, has the movie maker been in touch with you? They the pictures were clearly referenced "fair use - screenshots from the movie" with a description as to why they were fair use, what is the big idea deleting them and vandelising someones elses work? Murphy Inc 23:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The movie director, Lodge Kerrigan, sent an email to the Wikimedia Foundation alleging copyright infringement, claiming these photos were not fair use. He also stated the article contained erroneous claims. OTRS ticket David.Monniaux 00:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carla Baron

Hi,

Would it be prudent to make her a protected redirect to the program in which she appears? Best wishes, Xoloz 22:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Holly McGuire

Can you pleae stop wiping the talk page for this article. It's against the rules and you know it! I'm seeking arbitration on the News of the World content. It's relevant without a doubt and you know that too! You talk of my 'making a habit' of daring to insert facts about living people. I see three attempts. One got in, one did not and this one, which is most likely to be arbitrated in my favour if you look at it objecively. Three instances does not a habit make but we'll agree to differ. In the meantime though, stop the vandalism and threats of blocking me - you're on a bit of a sticky wicket yourself, I reckon.

Cheers, magpie1892 12.29, 6 June 2007 (gmt)

Ok, dude. I'm back from a whole day at work (you know, real work), during which I certainly did not have time to "wipe" discussion pages. You must be really out of your mind.
In the meantime though, stop the vandalism and threats of blocking me - you're on a bit of a sticky wicket yourself, I reckon. Really? David.Monniaux 18:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As much chance of being blocked as I am, I guess! Apologies for the accusation, seemed a bit of a coincidence and not really indicative that I am 'out of my mind' for suggesting it. I'm sure you understand. Wiping the talk page is not on at all, and your tone at being accused of such a thing suggests you agree with me. Anyway, I'm looking for guidance in getting the properly cited material on the main page. The talk page has been wiped again, some kid will probably get bored/blocked after a while, I don't know.

I know real work, yes. Not sure what you're geting at. You must hate your job!

No offence meant - I just want the page to be accurate.

Magpie1892 7/6/07

[edit] Donnie Darkhorse

Just a heads up: you deleted this article yesterday with reason "A7 and complaint on OTRS", and it was recreated today. Not sure if this is delete on sight or not. -SpuriousQ (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steamshovel Press

Your reply to Talk:Steamshovel Press#Complaint would be appreciated... ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 19:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello? I know you're there because you've made recent edits... ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 12:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Placeholders

I am not an admin, so I do not have the power to delete pages. All I did was tag blank pages as A3 violations of WP:SPEEDY. In the future, work on new articles offline or in your user space until the articles are ready. --FreeKresge 15:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Bonjour David. As FreeKresge says, please do not create articles that are just placeholders, work on the articles elsewhere. Thanks. Neil ╦ 15:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
In that case, please explain (using <!-- hidden text -->) the reason for the placeholder being there. We are not psychic. Neil ╦ 16:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joel Hayward

Why, WHY did you speedy delete the Joel Hayward article, especially since that article was nominated via AfD and the consensus was keep?!? I object to your summary action and will appeal. Groupthink 06:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The subject of the article complained to the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:OTRS). There is certainly an impropriety in having a biography article about a person that solely targets one issue in the lifetime of the person, without any reasonable attempt at balance. This person's article should more properly be folded in a more general article on academic controversies regarding negationnism. David.Monniaux 06:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Normally I would respond that that means the article should have been expanded, but if indeed the blp subject complained to WF, then yes, I apologize, you did the right thing, Wikipedia has to protect itself. Thanks for the reply. Groupthink 06:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
What do you think about mentionining the incident in a more general article on academic controversies regarding negationism? There have been many out there, in various countries. Most of the people involved are not that notable (not enough material to write a full biography outside from that particular event) but the incidents could be used to write a somewhat coherent article on the topic. I think this is more encyclopedic than n articles on various people where the only thing discussed is such or such incident, as though they had done this single thing in their lives (here, the problem is 15 year old for instance, and I can understand it can be considered harsh to have one's life defined by a single event from 15 years ago). What do you think? David.Monniaux 06:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a great idea, and I will add that to my rapidly growing to-do list. As for the Hayward controversy however, there are some broader considerations that should be kept in mind. If this had been a minor academic figure committing a minor faux pas, then I certainly wouldn't want that one SNAFU to be the sole scope of an encyclopedia entry on her/him. The problem with Hayward, however, is that his case did generate a kerfluffle in the press and among British and New Zealand academic circles, which I would argue makes him notable and merits his inclusion in an article of his own. (Incidentally, although the thesis was written and accepted in the '90s, it came under major fire, inquiry and academic review in 2000, so really we're only talking about a seven-year-old event).
You know, the ironic thing is, his article wound up on my watch list when I did some AfD patrolling. At that time, I actually pushed for the article's deletion, but when other debaters clamored for it to be kept due to the historical revisionism scandal, I took it upon myself to rewrite the darned thing.
At any rate, I think Norman Finkelstein would make a great starting point for an umbrella article on academic controversies, but wow, my mind's racing, there's so much else that could be touched on too, like "political correctness", and the conservative movement to protect right-wing student views from left-wing teachers, and holocaust denial, and severe pro- or anti-nationalistic views... yeah, negation/revisionism is a gold mine, and I'll have to think carefully about proper scope and structure... thanks Monsieur Monniaux, I know what I'll be doing with my Wikitime in the near future. :-D Groupthink 06:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are curious about such issues, then you probably want to investigate cases in France: the infamous Lyon III problem, the firing of Serge Thion, etc. David.Monniaux 07:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emails I sent

Thanks for the note. I've sent emails only to Kirbytime and 2 sock puppets of His Excellency. Thats it. Kirbytime's email was available on his blog. I've stopped sending emails to him for now. I thought emails were external from Wikipedia and so not under the policies that run here? Are there any policies for emails? In any case, I'll be more careful now. thanks --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:McCondom_dsc06781.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:McCondom_dsc06781.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 13:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commons image on Main Page

Just a reminder that when you add an image from Wikimedia Commons onto the Main Page (as you did on ITN), cascading protection does not protect the image. If you are not familiar with them already, the instructions for dealing with Commons images are visible when editing ITN. -- tariqabjotu 22:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Woops, forgot. Protected image on commons. David.Monniaux 22:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arvil Lavinge image

Hi David. I am needing an image of Arvil and the one at w:Image:Avrillavignex.jpg looks great. To actually use it, however, I am wondering if you would be willing to share a copy of the OTRS documentation releasing it under the GFDL. Kindly let me know! Stephen Ewen 02:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh oh. I'm not too much convinced that the photographer really accepted GFDL. Can you ask cbass at Wikimedia dot Org? He's the one who handled the list of photographs. David.Monniaux 04:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Situation absurde et désespérante

Revenu tout juste d'un énième blocage pour guerre d'édition, trois reverts, contournement de blocage, usage de faux-nez et autres, R9tgokunks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) recommence à faire des siennes, sabotant, détruisant, vandalisant le travail de douzaines de collaborateurs sérieux. Pourtant, les administrateurs auxquels j'ai signalé son retour dévastateur nen veulent rien entendre. Je n'y comprends plus rien. On ne peut pourtant plus partir de bonnes intentions dans un cas aussi extrême ! RCS 06:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sidney Nolan

Looking through this page history I can't really work out what's happened, but some vandalism was left on the page after this edit: [1]. Did you revert it to a mistaken version? Recurring dreams 09:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rocky Mountain High School (Colorado)

I'm not sure you're right to have deleted it via speedy--it does not seem to fit any of the speedy criteria, & as high school articles go, it's not all that bad. Unless you object, I'm going to undelete and work on it. DGG 13:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The answer is m:OTRS complaint. School articles generate an inordinate amount of complaints compared to their audience. David.Monniaux 17:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
So do we delete them all? I agree there may be some places where the vandalism is unsupportable, but doesnt revert and protect deal with that?DGG 03:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem with school articles is that each of them 1) interests few people (so no active patrolling) 2) attracts comparatively many vandals (typically, students from the said school). This explains the inordinate amount of vandalism, sometimes grave (allegations against principals and teachers etc.). It is quite evident that nobody on Wikipedia is willing to take responsibility for this; therefore, yes, we should delete all articles about highschools, except the really notable ones (those that have a statewide or national reputation). David.Monniaux 04:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sandworms of Dune

you deleted via m:OTRS and I can't find the mention. Mike33 19:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not super-attached to the text, but it seems like a pretty convenient turn of events to get your way. TAnthony 19:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
"To get my way?" For the record, I don't give a damn about these silly sci-fi sequels. :-) Ticket is here. David.Monniaux 20:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I wasn't aware of the OTRS before now. I couldn't log in to see the ticket using the link you provided. Could you copy the relevant information to the Sandworms talk page or here? --SandChigger 22:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
No, emails received by the Foundation are confidential. You are not allowed to see them, but you can ask any m:OTRS member to confirm what I said. David.Monniaux 05:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey there, I am going to get a "second opinion" for the heck of it but I wanted to say (despite my somewhat snarky note above, sorry) that I am sure your edit was in good faith. I assume that your original edit (the one I reverted) was a result of m:OTRS but not noted as such? TAnthony 17:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. The thing is, I sometimes avoid marking OTRS-justified edits as such because that tends to draw attention. David.Monniaux 17:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of French apartheid

Salut,

Ca devrait t'intéresser. Poppypetty 21:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Logo_of_ENS_Paris.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Logo_of_ENS_Paris.png. 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 04:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kleinwalsertal

Salut David,

I saw you listed on the Participants of the Maps-Project. I want to create a map of the Kleinwalsertal (see also de:Kleinwalsertal) that consider the topology, which is very important in that case. Would you mind helping me by rendering a GMT map? It would take a lot of time for me to install and learn the stuff. Do you have passion and time?

It would be that section: [Maps]. I'am able to do all the rest of the work (names of the villages, rivers and so on), but the gmt is very hard for me.

Thanks, --80.120.103.106 21:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC) (de:User:c.lingg)

Unfortunately I'm currently fairly busy with other issues. Moreover, the big issue is to get and process the data for the positions of cities, villages etc.; I don't know where to get these for Germany. David.Monniaux 20:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of Chinese apartheid AfD

Following your recent participation in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of French apartheid, you may be interested to know that a related article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is currently being discussed on AfD. Comments can be left at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 16:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Lexique imprimerie nationale

A template you created, Template:Lexique imprimerie nationale, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 21:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linda Bergkvist

Salut. Je me suis permis de retirer le bandeau que tu avais mis sur l'article Linda Bergkvist, vu que j'estimais qu'il y avait assez de références pour indiquer la notabilité de l'artiste ; au cas où, j'en ai même rajouté une ou deux, au risque de tomber dans le style annuaire. J'espère juste que je me suis pas trompé en supprimant bêtement le bandeau (mais avec un message dans l'edit summary), vu que le modèle que tu avais mis ne ressemblait à rien de familier pour moi : je suis plus habitué aux PàS de fr:. Cordialement. Rell Canis 23:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Noirepremierpresident big.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Noirepremierpresident big.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes 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 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. JackLau 10:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use disputed for Image:Pasqua charles77053g.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pasqua charles77053g.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 02:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use disputed for Image:Seguin Cour des Comptes.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Seguin Cour des Comptes.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 02:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Noirepremierpresident big.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Noirepremierpresident big.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. BetacommandBot 06:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help with Deletion story - Brotherhood of 36 and friends.

You deleted Joe Cardona:

07:00, 16 May 2007 David.Monniaux (Talk | contribs) deleted "Joe Cardona" ‎ (CSD:A7, no establishment of notability, complaints, prank)

I think it is one of a whole ball of wax that is fictitious, just a few articles which all link to each other. Kindly see Talk:Brotherhood of 36 - do you have any more information on 'prank'? Thanks! 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 07:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Waters

This statement is self-contradictory: "Waters suspects that the accuracy of articles varies in the inverse proportion of the interest that they generate, and thus the accuracy of history articles decreases as one strays away from the hot topics of American history."

Did you mean "increases" instead of "decreases" or is "inverse" wrong? ←BenB4 12:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fashionable Nonsense

I noticed your name on the talk page. I'd be interested in feed back on how the article is going. ThanksMarkAnthonyBoyle 18:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National Reserve Law Officers Association"

You speedily deleted this article with a summary that indicated that a complaint had been made to "the Foundation" (presumably the Wikimedia Foundation). There is a request by User:Scriberius on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Content review to restore the article to his user space. However, I am loath to do this until I understand more about the nature of the complaint and who made it.

--Richard 01:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The article had no sources, did not supply any evidence of notability about the said organization, and the Foundation got a complaint from the organization about inaccuracies. David.Monniaux 07:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
So... if Scriberius wants a copy in his user space to write a better article, there should be no problem with it, right? Although why he cares about restoring such a short article is beyond me. He could have rewritten it by now.
--Richard 07:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Why not indeed? David.Monniaux 08:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:2REG EFA 0604440929111.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:2REG EFA 0604440929111.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 21:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:FAMAS-1.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:FAMAS-1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 15:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:FAMAS-2.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:FAMAS-2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 15:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:FAMAS-3.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:FAMAS-3.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 15:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:GSIGN_assault_on_TGV.gif

I have tagged Image:GSIGN_assault_on_TGV.gif as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 15:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Chasseurs_alpins.jpg

I have tagged Image:Chasseurs_alpins.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Calliopejen1 21:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shell babelfish 17:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

The NPOV tag you placed on Post-abortion syndrome mentions that we should "Please see the discussion on the talk page." I'm confused what discussion you are referring to. Perhaps you could create a new section tilted something like "Article tagged for NPOV issues" and then go into specific detail about what parts of the article you feel are not neutral, and perhaps even make some proposals on how we could improve the article. It is hard for us to address your neutrality concerns if we don't even know what they are. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c [talk] 15:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a message to the article. I apologize if my above message is a bit condescending. I didn't realize you were a sysop and a OTRS. But still, having a talk page message accompanying a tag is always helps if the goal is to eventually improve the neutrality. Hopefully, no hard feelings.-Andrew c [talk] 22:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your image of the Nobel Medal in Image:Nobel_medal_dsc06171.jpg

David: Could you please assist again in responding to some questions that have re-occurred about this image in Image talk:Nobel_medal_dsc06171.jpg? If you have further information about the Nobel Prize Medal that you photographed, it might prove helpful. If you have returned to the site in Appleton Tower where you photographed the displayed Nobel Prize Medal and can give further information, that might prove helpful as well. We are still trying to determine the proper way to present the image in Wikipedia. Thanks again. --NYScholar 23:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I replied to you on my talk page with a related request. --NYScholar 12:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[Updating w/ copy of message posted on most recent uploader's talk page: Please see: User talk:Ral315#Possibly unfree Image:Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg. --NYScholar 15:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)]

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. NYScholar 15:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC) [I have worked hard on providing as much information on the image page (and talk page) as possible to give it a better shot at retention if that is possible, but I am not sure that it is; I've informed the original uploader User:David.Monniaux of the controversies as well. (I've listed it on related fair use and possible copyvio admin pages as well.) --NYScholar 15:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[--NYScholar 15:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)]

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Windows Live Messenger Window.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Windows Live Messenger Window.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.BetacommandBot 21:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Mazeaud.jpg

Replaceable fair use

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Mrg panafieu 4 internet.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Mrg panafieu 4 internet.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Selectron Tube layout problems

Hi David, Might I trouble you for help on the Selectron Tube page? I added another image and could not get the layout as expected. Then someone else tried and really messed it up. Would you kindly demonstrate an effective way to display the image and tables? Thanks OldZeb 02:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Christine Boutin 632.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Christine Boutin 632.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- lucasbfr talk 10:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:93RAM 155 TR F1 16082231456651583.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:93RAM 155 TR F1 16082231456651583.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 15:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nobel Prize medal again

Hi David. There is an editor who disputes that you took the picture of the Nobel Prize in Physics medal since it can be found in many places on the internet, such as here, and it supposedly looks very similar to the image on the Nobel Foundation's website. Could you please comment on this in the Talk:Nobel Prize#The Nobel Prize Medals thread? Since the thread is getting pretty long, the editor who is questioning whether you took the image or not is aNubiSIII. Thanks! –panda 07:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC) (Cross-posted to User talk:Ral315#Nobel Prize medal image –panda 19:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC))

I don't have the time to check whether the current image is still my original photo taken in the buildings of the University of Edinburgh during the SAS '05 conference. David.Monniaux 09:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to have bothered you. User:Ral315 has responded on his talk page so I hope that is sufficient. –panda 15:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Traditional healer Cote dIvoire 060433433791.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Traditional healer Cote dIvoire 060433433791.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:French VAB Cote d'Ivoire 2005 24073348319571911.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:French VAB Cote d'Ivoire 2005 24073348319571911.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. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Tauran jl am.jpg

Replaceable fair use

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Philippe Barbarin official site.jpg

Replaceable fair use

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:French 155 AUF1 cannon.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:French 155 AUF1 cannon.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. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:French 18th signal regiment.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:French 18th signal regiment.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. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:French army gazelle.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:French army gazelle.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. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Crowley

Surprised to see the article on my namesake speedy deleted; it passed an earlier deletion pass and he seemed to have enough publications to count as notable. Of course if it speeds up me getting my own Wikipedia article all the better :-) but I thought I'd make sure you'd seen the earlier pass. Thanks! — ciphergoth 01:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Nicolas Sarkozy UMP.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Nicolas Sarkozy UMP.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 20:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Q Clearance

Thank you for your help. I am happy to see I was wrong. 147.240.236.8 (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Pasqua charles77053g.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Pasqua charles77053g.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:BA702 CASSIC 2004 Img0199.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:BA702 CASSIC 2004 Img0199.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) 20:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Roselyne Bachelot 28179.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Roselyne Bachelot 28179.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:French Army 5th logistical group commissary.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:French Army 5th logistical group commissary.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 07:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nicolas Sarkozy UMP.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Nicolas Sarkozy UMP.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 (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Chasseurs_alpins.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Chasseurs_alpins.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gough Whitlam

I see you have removed some content from this article citing OTRS TicketID=1297977. I didn't add the information but would it be OK to add back the information on his schooling, which appears to me to be uncontroversial and relevent, without making reference to any association with any other people. The article is listed at WP:GAC and schooling is generally covered in politician bios. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 02:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Deleted the 'sockpuppets' page

Did you check in with User:JzG about User:Tweety21 first? (Or read the contents of the page?) There was nothing on that page that the user in question did not reveal about herself. Precious Roy (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I see that you deleted the page's talk page only—there was no personal info on there that I recall. Precious Roy (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The person complained that the page showed a first name and IP addresses belonging to a workplace. David.Monniaux (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, now both pages are gone. As I said before, there was nothing on that page that the editor did not reveal about herself through her own edits on Wikipedia (including signing her name—after having expressed privacy concerns). The person who complained has been a problem here for some time and as I understand it, JzG was handling her OTRS stuff (see the bottom of this page; see this for his recent opinion of the editor in question). My sockproblems page was blanked when she invoked the right to vanish (after being banned) but was restored when she continued to edit (and edit disruptively, I might add). Precious Roy (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I took the liberty of restoring these pages. There was no private information disclosed there that the banned vandal did not themselves reveal. Additionally, it looks like you did this without contacting the Wikimedia Office or JzG (talk · contribs). No worries, Tweety21 (talk · contribs) has a very long history of pulling stunts like this and making some fairly outrageous claims. Best thing to do is to revert, block, and ignore. --Yamla (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Could you please inform me why an image, of which I am the sole copyright owner, uploaded to Portballintrae was deleted without any prior warning given to me? I would like an explanation. --Immanuel can't (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, well as I no longer can see the photos I cannot be 100%, but I'm quite certain that I took at least one of them personally. --Immanuel can't (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:8th RPIMa.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:8th RPIMa.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 (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:French infantryman using Minimi.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:French infantryman using Minimi.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 (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] [Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Google Earth]]

This is wrong, but I can't dit it.

  1. If somewhere is tagged wrong in our database then it can be fixed, (perhaps by the person concerned, perhaps by someone contacted, if they are unsure how to use geotags) -- link to geotagging guide/form maybe.
  2. If someone doesn't want Wikipedia tags then they can remove them from showing in Google Earth. Link to google earth help/support page maybe

Swithlander (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Dassault serge04055h.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Dassault serge04055h.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of René Guyon Society

An editor has nominated René Guyon Society, 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/René Guyon Society 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) 05:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Logo-Canard-Enchaine.png

I have tagged Image:Logo-Canard-Enchaine.png as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Canivet.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Canivet.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rossrs (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Bishop is notable

I have removed your prod tag from the Jonathan Bishop page. Not only do I know Mr Bishop as one of the first Labour politicians to have a weblog, but as it says in the article he has also developed the leading social networking technology on the Web. --Politicool (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] French Third Republic

David: Please click on the above article. I would like your thoughts on the content of the infobox. Je suis tombée sur l'article tout à fait par hasard hier, en suis tombée à la renverse, et n'en suis pas encore revenue. Ai laissé un commentaire à la page de discussion. Merci de bien vouloir y jeter un coup d'œil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:French_Third_Republic

Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Merci pour l'explication... but the sight of the swastika makes me cringe. Frania W. (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:93RAM Minimi 01053339598268513.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:93RAM Minimi 01053339598268513.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) 12:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong image for LOLF

Hi there, just noticed this (I believe you added that image): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Government_of_France#Wrong_image_for_LOLF -- Typewritten (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:ACM 4C vector 80.png

Thanks for uploading Image:ACM 4C vector 80.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)