User talk:Gingerfield rocks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Editing arcade articles

Please look at other arcade articles, like Gradius or Donkey Kong (arcade game) or Asteroids (computer game)] Or any other arcade game articl before continuign your editing. Stop making trivial, bullshitty additions which do not add any value at all. You obviously know the worthiness of your contributions, and youre not helpibng by creating more work for all of us to maintain. Learn how to write articles. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 14:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not edit those articles - the only arcade articles I edit are those about Namco games. None of those games are by Namco. Gingerfield rocks 08:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying you should learn the style those articles are written, so you can make relevent edits to the namco articles. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 14:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Country of export

Stop putting mentions of games being possibly exported to the United States; it is not worth mentioning, and is is uncited and just useless filler in the article. Any product from another country could be broughbt over. Should i go to every Non-US product and say "some peopel export it to the United States" ? No that woudl be rediculous. The important thing to note is that many of these namco games came out only in japan; it is tacitly understood that some opeopel coudl have ogtten their hands on it elsewhere. Please stop re-inserting it. You should focus on actually expanding the content of these namco games, rather than putting in weak statements in 50 articles, having it being reverted, then doiong it again, and so on. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 13:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see discussion on Talk:Assault Plus regarding this matter. You failed to provide any real reason to why the paragraph shoudl be included. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 13:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Game soundtracks

Game soudntrack references are relevent to the article. THe article is not just about the game context its about how the game and all its contexts. Please dont remove game soundtracks. And when youre oging to make a change liek this to a bunch of articles, please try to make a note before you go and do it . Thanks and happy editing --larsinio (poke)(prod) 13:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm leaving!

By the time you read this, I will be gone. It's obvious that you all want me removed from Wikipedia before I damage its credibility any further. Don't worry, you'll never see my Namco article vandalism or my various sockpuppets here again. Goodbye. Gingerfield rocks 10:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

w00t! and w00t first post! sorry it didn't work out. --Herzog 14:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't get wikibummed! The problem with wikipedia is that its based on consensus. In the beginnign of my wikijourney, I would get quite angry at users for removing some information that I thought added ot hte article, but was found to be inaccurate. I went through same kind of revert wars that is going on now. I highly encourage you to continue and, above all, have fun! You may get angry when peopel revert your changes, but theres no need to try to get even by one-upping others, that will cjust inflame the situation. Stay Cool!! --larsinio (poke)(prod) 17:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, he wrote "I'm leaving" weeks ago; he's gone and come back, making exactly the same (unverified and sometimes plain disruptive) edits, adn refusing to discuss matters — just dumb reverting. He almost certainly sue mock-puppets, as has been pointed out by others, and he's very, very close to being blocked for disruptive editing (again). (With regard to your message below, though, he hasn't violated 3RR, or even come close.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NOT AGAIN !!

I see that you have returned as well as your alternate IP address (193.164.112.20)

How many times do you need to be told that release months are not good and to stop putting them in the Namco game entries ?? Case in point, the Dragon Saber list says 1987 10 for Pac-Mania but the info page for Pac-Mania in Namco Museum Volume 5 for the PS1 on Namco's own site says 1987 11 (http://namco-ch.net/nm_vol5/vol5-pacmania.html) - both sources are from Namco but one has to be a typo. Much better to simply go with the year 1987 as listed in the game's onscreen copyright. Months and especially specific days are dubious at best. The Arcade History Database while a good resource can only rely on other sources of info provided by users. Very likely the dates there come from the Dragon Spirit/Dragon Saber lists which have been proven to be in question. Specifying a release year which is easily verifiable by a game's onscreen copyright is good enough.

16:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


I concur! Here Here! --orphan frequently 04:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits from User:193.164.112.20

You've been blocked from editing for twenty-four hours for persistent vandalism and disruption using this account and IP accounts, including that in the heading. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Questionable release info

Why do you keep adding questionable release info ? The release months have been proven questionable and it really isn't important what month a game was released in, knowing the release year is sufficient for the vast majority of people. Also what is the point of adding the Japanese flag to the release date in the infobox ? Having text in the article stating this should be sufficient. Worse some of the games were in fact released in the U.S. (e.g. Solvalou and Xevious 3D/G) so your info is inaccurate yet again. It seems like you've made these changes to virtually every Namco game article, this is not good.

[edit] More Namco System 1 futile vandalism

I remind you that repeated unconstructive edits (such as replacing the link to Bravoman and erasing the complete japanese title) are considered vandalism. You may -cleverly- try to "distribute" the "workload" between this account and your sockpuppet User:193.164.112.20 so they never get blocked at the same time or "water down" punishments, but how longer do you expect to last doing that? EpiVictor 19:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Addition: he did this particular edit at least twice as Gingerfield, and at least once as User:193.164.112.20 this week alone. EpiVictor 19:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Dragon Spirit Series

Template:Dragon Spirit Series has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ordyne

Stop it with the comment that Ordyne is the first game which uses massive sprite scaling and rotation, this is highly unlikely. Ordyne is a Namco System 2 game and so is Assault which came before it. Assault does indeed use sprite scaling and rotation but Ordyne is a horizontal scrolling shooter, it doesn't use sprite rotation and it doesn't sprite scaling as much as Assault does. Again you make inaccurate nonsense posts likely based upon something you saw on some random website. 17:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

What part of horizontal scrolling shooter do you not understand ? STOP IT with your unverified garbage and stop putting months in all of the game entries, how many times to you need to be told that even Namco's own info is conflicting in several cases and it's really not important ?? Please go away and stay gone once and for all, your edits are highly unwelcome.

03:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pointless edits

Why put "this game is emulated in MAME" in the games articles ? Virtually every arcade game is emulated in MAME so this is pointless to mention.

Stop putting in the phrase "It was originally only released in Japan, though a small number of games have been exported." This phrase is useless, as it anythign coudl be brought over from another country. And it is alos an uncited statement. I'm reverting these right now. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 13:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shoot 'em up

Does SOS have bosses and an episodic level structure? Spottedowl 11:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

No, but it predates Xevious by 2 years. Gingerfield rocks 11:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps you missed the part underneath, which says This game introduced many concepts that are standard in scrolling shooters today, such as an episodic level structure, and bosses. If that doesn't apply to SOS, the text can be removed. However, I'm not convinced that SOS is a vertical scroller - from screenshots it looks like it could be placed in the 'single screen shooter' category, along with shooters like Galaxian which are arguably vertically-scrolling, but in which the scrolling does not affect the gameplay. I haven't played SOS, so I'll have to research more. Spottedowl 15:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've played SOS and Xevious and I'd say that SOS is NOT a vertical scrolling shooter. The vertically scrolling shooter category should be used for games which you fly over a scrolling background and can interact with it (i.e. bomb or shoot ground or sea targets). SOS should be simply categorized a shoot 'em up like Galaxian or Galaga.

16:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Months

Please stop adding the (inappropriately linked) months to to articles; it has been pointed out by other editors that these months are far from reliable. If you continue to add them, you risk being blocked from editing. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the months from the articles. Gingerfield rocks 09:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Namco articles and 3rr, fighting with User:Mel Etitis

You have now violated the 3 revert rule, with adding and removing of hte dates of the namco arcade games. I am volunteering myself to act as a mediator in this situation. Please explain where you are getting the release dates from. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 17:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I got them from the Arcade History Database, but I've removed them now. Gingerfield rocks 09:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solvalou and Xevious 3D/G

Solvalou and Xevious 3D/G were released in the U.S. but weren't very common. I played them in arcades in Florida in the 90's and the last time I checked Florida was in the United States. Additionally Xevious 3D/G was released on the PS1 as the main game in Xevious 3D/G+ along with Xevious, Super Xevious and Xevious Arrangement.

STOP IT WITH YOUR STUPID REVERTING GINGERFIELD !! You clearly don't have accurate information and you clearly don't care either.

03:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Summary

Hi Gingerfield rocks. Thank you for your date corrections to many of the video game articles. A wee request though ... can you please add an edit summary to your edits? It makes it easier for other editors to follow along when viewing the history of an article. Thanks! Image:Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman(talk) 14:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numatic International Limited

Your edits to this article, like those to others, are not acceptable. You have been warned about this before; if you continue to insist on turning the article into an advertisement, you risk being blocked from editing for a period (again). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

How am I turning the article into an advertisement?!? Gingerfield rocks 10:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This time, by adding a gallery of photographs of each item in their product range (photographs that are virtually identical, incidentally). In the past, by adding text that read like an advertisement for the company. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, sorreee!!! Gingerfield rocks 09:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Tinkle Pit

Gingerfield, stop with your obnoxious edits. The consensus is to be as general with release dates as the facts allow, and not to bring up MAME in every emulatable game. Despite this you (and your nameless puppet IP address) are going on in absurd edit war with me in the Tinkle Pit article.

Shrugging off the thoughts of an entire community to do your own unilateral work, particularly with such a cohesive one like Wikipedia, is rude and shows how poorly you understand the concept of collaborative work. If you feel that your thoughts trump those of the combined masses, mods and general users alike, register a Geocities account and build your own webpage. Don't forget to hide your password, because you don't want other people to edit it! Spamguy 17:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Even more annoying Tinkle Pit edits, this time in many articles. STOP with your disruptive edits. Articles should be about a specific game and only mention stuff directly related like a sequel or prequel.

02:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pointless mentions of MAME

There is no reason to mention that every game is emulated by MAME. Also listing the roms used by MAME is definitely extraneous information, there are websites specifically for this, it seems inappropriate to list this stuff here. Finally MAME romset names have changed from time to time. Remove *ALL* mentions of MAME, it's simply not relevant to the games. 15:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention there are also multiple versions of several games which is another problem with mentioning this stuff, leave this information to the websites specifically about MAME. 15:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Series templates with only two games is unneeded

Two games hardly constitutes a series yet you have made several templates for which there are only two games. You were told about this in regards to Dragon Spirit/Dragon Saber and you go and make more ?!? I found the following: Pole Position/Pole Position II, Bosconian/Blast Off, Baraduke/Baraduke II, Sky Kid/Sky Kid Deluxe, Rolling Thunder/Rolling Thunder 2, Tank Battallion/Tank Force - there are probably more.

Also the Namco Arrangement games were not separate games, they were part of the arcade games Namco Classics Collection Volume 1 and 2 so their mention in series templates is debatable, at the very least this needs to be specified as the six arrangement games were never released as separate games. 15:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

You are popular, aren't you? :) This one's about redirects... it's not really important, but redirect pages don't get formatted nicely if a space isn't put between #redirect and the wikilink (ie. it should go #redirect the wikilink). It still works without it, though. Spottedowl 17:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Namco shoot 'em ups

Please stop changing back the description o allt he namoc shoot emup games. I watch and edit basicalyl every shoot 'em up article and the propery syntax is horizontal/vertical <shoot 'em up sub genre> arcade game like "horizontal [[scrolling shooter]" or "multi-directional shooter". --larsinio (poke)(prod) 17:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How many times

How many times do you have to keep coming back and posting inaccurate crap to the Namco games articles ?!? Would you please go away once and for all, your edits are NOT welcome. 06:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maim

I have nominated the redirect for deletion because it's confusing; "to maim" means "to cripple", and all incoming links are in this sense. - Mike Rosoft 20:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop inserting random Namco games into Bravoman Humour and Trivia

The reason why Wonder Momo and Pistol Daimyo no Bouken are there is that they have some relation/bonds with Bravoman (Pistol Daimyo appears in Bravoman, but please refer to the definition of spin-off before slamming it everywhere, and Wonder Momo shares the offbeat sense of humour and superhero ridiculing concept with Bravoman (Namco itself pairs them in a later game, Namco x Capcom. Also, all these three games are indeed regarded as obscure and as among the least successful Namco games (at least until emulation fans gave them so much attention), so please just stop removing them and replacing them with other random Namco games, as you're just missing the whole point.

Note for admins regarding the issue: he performed this reversal at least 3 times until now. EpiVictor 14:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Wonder Momo has slightly questionable content, unlike Bravoman and Pistol Daimyo no Bouken. It's also a Namco System 86 game which means it only uses 8-bit graphics, unlike a Namco System 1 game which uses 16-bit graphics. Why can't you use two Namco System 1 games instead? Gingerfield rocks 09:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That is not the point...and you threw in randomly games such as Rompers and something else I don't recall...it's not a matter of hardware, but of humour and content: Wonder Momo is supposed to be a kind of lesser parody of a superhero...just like Bravoman, and being an 8 or 16-bit game doesn't matter in this case. The fact that Namco even paired them in Namco x Capcom also gives more weight to the idea that the games are somehow related or at least stem from a certain common -not very successful- idea. Rompers is a puzzle/maze game which has nothing to do, and the other one...heh, "gambling with frogs" as it has been described on overclocked, bears no resemblance or references to either of those two games...plus, some of the robotic enemies faced by Wonder Momo look like Bravoman himself or some of his enemies. The point of mentioning them wasn't to just slap in 2-3 "crappy" Namco games for the sake of it, but find a connection between those 2-3 games (Pistol Daimyo for some reason appears first in Bravoman, then in his own game, but he could even appear somewhere else, before Bravoman). EpiVictor 11:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:RumbleRobots.jpeg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:RumbleRobots.jpeg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images 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 Image legality questions page. Thank you. Stan 13:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop

You are repeatedly altering the logo on the article BBC from the correct current logo to one last in use around a decade ago. Please stop doing this as you are just wasting the time of others as we revert you. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 15:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated nuisance edits

STOP with all of the irrelevant nuisance edits and back and forth edit wars in the Namco arcade game articles. MAME does NOT count as a release of anything, it's an emulator. Also adding references to Tinkle Pit appearances in 10+ articles is foolish and annoying. Why do you keep coming back and making these nonsense edits which simply get reverted ? Frankly it's surprising you haven't been banned for your constant disruptive edits. Why don't you just go away once and for all, you edits are NOT wanted. 15:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable 2-day block

The block message says that my IP address has been blocked. My IP address is 193.164.112.20. Gingerfield rocks 13:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if anything, that's the first time there's some sort of "officially recognized" connection between you and User:193.164.112.20, at least according to your own words. Sure, he could still be someone else impersonating you closely and somehow using your same IP...and "following" your edits...etc. etc. :-) EpiVictor 15:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
User:193.164.112.20 is doing the exact same edits that Gingerfield does, and most of the editors in the CVG space who interact with his commonly affected articles recognize this as well. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 16:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually he admitted being User:193.164.112.20 here, though he perhaps didn't mean to. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Legal notices" spam

Please stop adding this legal notice cruft to so many videogame articles. It is unencyclopedic, uninteresting, and it wastes everyone else's time trying to clean up after you. Thanks in advance. Nandesuka 14:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It's very uncivil, you do not own articles. This needs to be discussed, not yelled about. --Golbez 14:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last warning

If you don't stop adding irrelevant, false, uncited, and inappropriate material to articles, and removing material for no reason, you will be blocked from editing. This also applies to your anonymous edits. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


Please block Gingerfield and 193.164.112.20, he keeps adding inaccurate entries, irrelevancies and nonsense which people have to revert. The latest round of bad edits includes listing music composers under designer, listing what release of MAME a game was added in the infobox and assuming that Toru Iwatani designed the Pac-Man sequels despite the fact there's no evidence to suggest that he designed any game in the series other than the original.

He has made no edits since my warning. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Gingerfield is back creating pointless articles from existinf entries. See Postman SAm and Fireman Pat as examples Nuttah68 09:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't blank the Talk page, as there are unexpired warnings. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


A heads up to everyone: user Puckman765 is Gingerfield / 193.164.112.20 - see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Puckman765

So be on the lookout for more of his nonsense edits from Puckman765.

[edit] Vandalism

You have been warned extensively in the past to cease this behaviour. I will block you indefinitely if you post another version related to Postman Pat. Harro5 10:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Assa0000.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Assa0000.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Valkyrie.png

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Tceptor.png)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 01:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Tceptor2.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tceptor2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 01:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Skykid.png

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Skykid.png. 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.

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. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Shadowld.png

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Shadowld.png. 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.

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. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Pistoldm.png

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Pistoldm.png. 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.

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. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Tankfrce.png

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Tankfrce.png. 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.

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. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Faceoff.png

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Faceoff.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 after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Spla0001.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Spla0001.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) 20:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Geebee.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Geebee.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 (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sos.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Sos.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) 07:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Rompers.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Rompers.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 (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Blazer.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Blazer.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 (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Bakutotu.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Bakutotu.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Bombbee.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Bombbee.gif. 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) 10:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)