User talk:Hayford Peirce

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:Hayford Peirce/Archive: from the beginning to 3 August 2006

Contents

[edit] Mammary intercourse

First you say it's racist because she had bright red lipstick, the same red colour as the white woman had. Then I change her lips to a lush pink colour like Beyonce has, then you still cry racist. Saintrotter 3 March 2007

[edit] Hello

Mr. Peirce, I'm a long-time admirer of your work (see http://www.amazon.com/Thirteenth-Majestral-Hayford-Peirce/dp/0812548922 ), and I'm sorry I didn't realize you lived in Tucson before we moved away (in 2005). Cheers, Pete Tillman 17:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patricia Holm, etc

According to the Saintly Bible website someone was at one point going to write a Son of the Saint movie or novel that would have revealed that Patricia got pregnant and had a son by Templar, which is probably why she disappeared. I happened to notice that she's in Prelude for War, which is a good dozen books away from where I am now, so hopefully after Holy Terror she makes a few more appearances. I thought she'd already been written out by the time I got to She Was a Lady. Apparently one of the later collaboration writers wanted to bring Holm back and Charteris absolutely forbade it. Speaking of the Saintly Bible, the site must be run by Barer because the bibliography is identical (as in word for word) to what Barer has in his book, even down to listing Enter the Saint as coming out between Last Hero and Avenging Saint (which I guess is possible, though it doesn't make sense in terms of story chronology). 23skidoo 00:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Once I've read more, I actually plan to do an article on Patricia Holm, along with one for Teal since these seem to be the major recurring characters (since Roger Conway and the others don't really last past Avenging Saint). I agree that I doubt Charteris would have discussed wedlock in the 40s -- however I do find it interesting that Templar and Holm are clearly co-habitating in these early-1930s books, at a time when I believe common law relationships were actually illegal in places like the UK, and Charteris definitely describes them having a "tryst" of some sort in Meet the Tiger suggesting their relationship isn't platonic; pretty progressive stuff for the era. Maybe Charteris felt uncomfortable with it. Incidentally something I've noticed in "recent" Holm appearances -- at least up to Holy Terror -- is how much Pat and Simon's banter reminds me of that between John Steed and both Cathy Gale and Emma Peel in The Avengers. I've never seen anyone make the connection, but I'm willing to bet there was some inspiration taken from the Saint books when that series was created. 23skidoo 01:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Nick and Nora is another good example, though they were more contemporaries of Simon and Pat. What I like about the banter is there's something bubbling under the surface. In "The Inland Revenue" Patricia basically talks her way into a mission because she's basically all the Saint has left of his old gang. So we see her put on a mask and put a gun to the bad guy's head -- and later complain that she wasn't able to shoot the guy, which even makes Simon stop for a moment and go "whoa!" That's where she reminded me a bit of Emma and Cathy; not that they were nearly as bloodthirsty, but they could on occasion make off-the-cuff remarks like "I'm bored; I haven't killed anyone all week" which I believe is said by either Steed of Peel in an episode. They don't mean it, of course, but that's the same kind of banter I sense between Simon and Pat. But it's clear Charteris had no idea what to do with her from the start, seeing how he basically sent her to the Mediterranean for Enter the Saint. And the only thing I disliked about The Last Hero is how he suddenly drops the bombshell about Norman Kent being in love with Pat, which is very nice if only we'd actually had any stories with Norman with which to gain any sort of sympathy for the character. I really wonder (and perhaps Barer will clear this up once I read his book) if there weren't a number of unpublished Saint stories that did in fact flesh out characters like Norman Kent and Roger Conway, who otherwise really only appear rather fleetingly in the books as published. Perhaps Charteris felt he did stronger work without an ensemble cast of regulars, which is why Simon ultimately become a solo act. 23skidoo 01:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Just flipping through the Barer book has revealed some very interesting information about Charteris and his writing. For example several of the early Saint stories were actually rewrites of previously published stories (apparently one of the novels is a remake of "Daredevil", one of the first books Charteris published; I'm not sure which one). I agree that Charteris most likely did see himself as growing as a writer - note how virtually every reissue of his early works comes with an apology and I have one copy of Enter the Saint in which he tries to pretend Meet the Tiger never existed. Something else I spotted in Barer is as early as the early 1950s Charteris was getting tired of the character and plans were put in place for ghost writers to take over -- just like the 1960s. I also learned that Hodder & Stoughton actually rejected several Saint stories for publication, which is why some stories don't appear in the British editions of things like Boodle/Saint Intervenes. H&S also disliked Charteris' preference for short stories and novellas, preferring he write full-length books from a sales standpoint. This actually makes sense since Saint in New York, a novel, was (according to the Saintly Bible site) the highest-selling Saint book of all. After I finish Holy Terror I think I might read the Barer book, though I'll have to be careful to avoid story spoilers; he doesn't give synopses for all the stories (I wish he did) but he does make comments referring to events in the books that I might not want given away until I get to them. 23skidoo 02:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you see that Burl Barer himself left a message on the Simon Templar talk page? 23skidoo 13:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for the heck of it I've decided to create a Patricia Holm article, although I'm only up to Once More the Saint (aka Saint and Mr. Teal) in my readings. Feel free to expand! 23skidoo 15:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

Hi there! I have moved your archive to User talk:Hayford Peirce/Archive, since it is an archive of a User Talk page it should be under the "User talk:" namespace, not in the article namespace. Cheers! --Stormie 04:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World as Myth

I don't know that it's original research so much as an actual term that has worked its way into RAH studies (or whatever you would call it). I can't find a for-sure first source for it, but it appears as part of the title of a 1992 U of North Carolina thesis on RAH and now shows up in conference-panel titles on the late books. Bill Patterson also seems to use the term in his presentations as well. (Interestinly enough, James Gifford calls these late books the "Multiverse" sequence.) Several Googled-up pages assert that RAH coined the term, but don't specify where. So I'd say it's a term in actual use, even though it snuck up on me, too. RLetson 04:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just noticed this old conversation. Apologies for butting in; I found the term on page 368 (in chapter XXIX) of my hardcover copy of The Cat Who Walks Through Walls. Jubal Harshaw says "Now I know the truth of the World as Myth I will never again create a real villain....". -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 16:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heinlein in Tahit

That picture in the Robert A. Heinlein article is indeed quite a lot better than the one you replaced with it. Good edit. -Zeno Izen 19:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waylon Jennings

I have been doing alot of work on the Waylon Jennings page. I have have been putting on a few new pictures and some new info but...there is only so much that I can do. So I thought that I would ask you if you know any info on the late great Waylon Jennings if you do that would be great and help alot! - Alakey2010 06 August 2006, 08:04 p.m.

[edit] WHAT'S GOING ON????

Although I'm not involved in this discussion, as an administrator I cannot let this go by unnoticed. I have left a warning on this guy's page and further outbursts like this will result in him being blocked from editing Wikipedia. 23skidoo 00:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meet the Tiger

I was just looking at the George Jones guy's message above. He needs a lesson in Wikipedia etiquette. If he gives you too much trouble, he can be blocked. Anyway in answer to your question I'm not sure what part came out confusing. Most of the info I got from the IMDb, the fact that the story of the film starts differently than the book (there's no murder at the beginning) and the book had a Teal-like character named Carn, but the movie instead had Teal impersonating a man named Karn. In any event, there is now a separate film article at The Saint Meets the Tiger. I also split The Saint in New York (film) off by itself and also created starter stubs on the remaining RKO films. 23skidoo 00:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Em dashes

Is your edit comment "changed hyphens to long dashes, whatever you call 'em," an intentional joke? Printers refer to them as "em dashes" (because their width is about the same as that of the capital letter M), and they are represented in html by the entity — Dpbsmith (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taking the Helms

Just FYI I'm in the process of creating a batch more Matt Helm articles. Not sure if I'll finish the set today or not, but as always please feel free to expand them. In terms of images we need, here are the books I do not have covers for (watch for the redlinks to disappear and then you'll know to add the images): Terminators, Retalitators, Terrorizers, Annihilators, Detonators, Demolishers, Threateners, Damagers. 23skidoo 15:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, they are now all done! 23skidoo 18:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. The plot summaries might need to be corrected. I only took the most superficial information off the Matt Helm Unofficial Homepage book summaries, both to avoid copying too much from that site and to try and limit spoilers. 23skidoo 18:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Well at least Hamilton had the girls saying it to men. I always found it strange to hear Templar saying "Darling" to men! An examination of Hamilton's writing style (sourced, of course) could work well. Speaking of Templar, I have created articles for the remaining English-language films and have expanded Getaway (The Saint) as I've read through the book. 23skidoo 18:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Intimidators. Yeah, that's based on the little write up on the Helm webpage. I'm sure it's a bit more complicated than that, however! 23skidoo 03:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manhattan (cocktail)

Like I said, nice photo. I'm not too worried that it doesn't shine like an advertisement, it looks great. Nice touch with showing the ingredients. --The Yar 19:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Warner Slocum

Well, you're the Civil War expert -- is he or isn't he the father of HWS, Jr.? Jr. attended Yale and there are a couple of references to him as Jr. How likely is it that he *isn't* the son of the other guy? I think it's appropriate in a encyl. to at least raise the possibility -- that's better than stating it as a *fact* -- one that then turns out to be wrong. For instance, I wrote two articles about old Czech tennis players, the Kozeluh brothers. But secondary sources, which was all I could find, had contradictory info: some said they were brothers, some said they weren't. So I wrote that the issue was unsettled. A couple days ago a Czech lady translated a long Czech article for me: they were indeed brothers.... Hayford Peirce 19:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I checked three different biographies of Slocum and they make no mention of a son. It seems relatively likely given the name, his age, and somewhat similar appearance, but Wikipedia does not rely on my opinion or yours, it restricts information to that found in reliable secondary sources. See WP:NOR. Unless you can find a secondary source that shows his lineage, the most I would be comfortable saying would be that they have similar names, which is weak enough to not bother including anyway. Hal Jespersen 23:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pat Holm - a sociopath?

I'm now about halfway through Once More the Saint (aka Saint and Mr. Teal) and I've come to a conclusion regarding Patricia Holm, but I can't really add it to the article as it would be considered original research, which is a no-no in Wikipedia. Charteris seemed to have a certain way of portraying Pat Holm -- she's often described as being dispassionate, sometimes almost robotically following Templar's instructions, and acting rather unemotional when around bad guys. And even when the villains aren't around, Charteris often says things like "Holm said dispassionately" or "coldly". In The Holy Terror, (and again in Getaway), Simon actually goes "Whoa!" when Patricia acts rather strangely (complaining about not being able to shoot a bad guy, for example). And in Getaway she seems more concerned about lighting a cigarette than helping Monty Hayward take care of a dead body. My observation is -- I wonder if Patricia Holm might have been a sociopath? She seems to fit the bill. Certainly Charteris makes it pretty clear that all is not 100% with Ms. Holm -- moreso than if it were just his discomfort in writing for her, and it can't be a case of him not knowing how to write an heroic female character in the 1930s since he does a great job with Jill Trelawney in She Was a Lady and that female scientist whose name I forget in Alias the Saint. Have you ever heard this theory suggested anywhere else? I haven't read much of Barer's book yet so I don't know if he enters into it, but I think -- if it's true -- then it adds a whole new dimension to the character. 23skidoo 03:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template usage

Bonjour Hayford, I think you understand this template slightly differently than it was intended: you uploaded several shots of tennis players, noting they were historic photos. But if they are indeed old, the meaning of this template was for depiction of impossible to repeat, historic in an academic way, event. Not really some aged illustrative shots, who could be obtained by other ways, I believe. --Marc Lacoste 17:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Salut, Marc. Well, this whole Wiki policy (or policies) about images, copyright, fair use, etc. etc. is a real can of worms that I think no one really understands 100%. I know that I've talked with administrators who aren't clear about it, and who argue among themselves about what is permissible and what isn't. So I'm far from being an expert about it. My understanding of the historic photo template (and I freely admit that I could be completely wrong about it) is that it is permissible to take an old photograph that may still be under copyright and use it in a "historic" context, in order to illustrate a particular article -- particularly if no other photographs are available, or, if they are available, clearly cannot be used because of copyright issues. As you say, I've put in a bunch of "historic" tennis photos in various tennis articles, many of which, such as tennis, are obviously visited by a large number of editors. The only comments I've had from anyone was that I didn't show the original source of the "historic" photos in a couple of cases. So I went back and put in the source, such as "AP photo, copyright 1934", or whatever, and that seems to have taken care of the problem. I sure wish that this whole issue was easier to understand! Cheers! Hayford Peirce 18:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
You're right, it's a pretty unclear template, and it's regulary discussed. Here is my take:

There is only one picture in the world depicting an universally recognized, important historic photo. Therefore it's impossible to recreate it or to get another source, and not showing it on wikipedia should be unacceptable. Then the copy rights are impossible to enforce, but the copyright is still holding.

e.g. Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg. My opinion is that one still of borotra is just one among others, its unicity isn't very obvious. I came upon yours browsing the Category:Fair use historic photographs and sawing there was many tennis photos. --Marc Lacoste 23:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interlopers, etc.

Looks good, though it might need a little tweaking to avoid a few minor "essay-isms" that they don't seem to like at Wikipedia. Interesting stuff. Re:Patricia - it just was something that caught me since I've pretty much been "chug-a-lugging" Saint since May, reading almost nothing but Charteris since sometime in May (though I'm taking a break to read The Illuminatus! Trilogy again which is something I do every 5 years). I just finished reading The Brighter Buccaneer which of course was the first short story collection -- it's interesting to read Barer's history of how these short pieces came about. Although I miss the character development and depth of the novels or novellas, these short, snappy stories are quite cool in their own way and several actually made me laugh out loud. Having now read 10 Saint books, I'd have to say the format that works best is the novella. I liked the novels Getaway and She Was a Lady well enough, but they did seem to wear out their welcome about 3/4 of the way through. (Actually, to be fair, She Was a Lady is actually 3 novellas combined together it seems). I don't find Patricia boring, but my favorite character might well be Teal -- I'm surprised Charteris didn't write a spin-off series of stories featuring just Teal. If they ever do another Saint movie they should get Bob Hoskins to play him. 23skidoo 19:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If no one else has a problem, I see no reason to change anything re: the style. No worries. Regarding the Saints, I already consider the shorts to be superior to the novels (with the exception of Meet the Tiger which, strangely enough, remains my favorite novel so far). However I do rank the novellas as superior to the short stories. I think, in some respects, they represent a happy medium, and in my opinion Getaway certainly would have been a stronger book if it had been cut by 1/3 and become a novella. The short stories and quick and fun, some almost taking on "morality fable" sentiments, but they don't do much for developing character, either of the Saint or the others. I think one reason the Saint shorts work as well as they do is because by this point Charteris had already spent 5 novels and more than a dozen novellas establishing the character; had he started with the shorts I don't think it would have worked as well. I enjoy the fact that Charteris used more than one format for telling his tales -- much as Doyle did with Sherlock Holmes (another one with full novels, novellas and short stories though nowhere near as many). 23skidoo 22:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I have no objection at all if you have better images to use on the Helm articles (this goes for the Saint books, too). If you could leave me a quick note on my talk page if you do that would be great so that I know to delete the older versions. I know the general feeling here is that we should use first edition covers when we can (like you did with Death of a Citizen) so if you have any earlier versions of ones I've posted -- I think I have at least one later reprint that shows the "long haired" Helm rather than the older Helm from the 60s, but I forget which book that is -- feel free to replace what I have. In the case of the Saint we should do this if possible too, though to be honest a lot of the early Charteris covers were kinda...bland, so in some cases a more attractive cover might not hurt. I'm thinking, for example, of Boodle; I've seen a picture of the first edition hardcover and I much prefer the later pulp Saint Intervenes version that I have illustrated. Same with The Saint Goes On. But if we can replace that rather awful late-60s "girls and guns" cover from The Saint to the Rescue with anything else, I'd be quite happy! 23skidoo 01:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on Intriguers. I deleted the older image. Was there an "older Helm" version of The Terminators or was that the point where the sideburns version was introduced? I came across another copy of Terminators yesterday (in a community centre book exchange bin of all places) but it's the same version I have). 23skidoo 15:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New articles

The Saint article family has been expanded a little. I just created articles on Claud Eustace Teal and the pre-Saint novel Daredevil (novel) which I learned from Barer's book actually featured Teal! Feel free to expand either as you see fit! (You wouldn't happen to have a copy of Daredevil for a cover scan, would you? 23skidoo 18:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magazine images

This is a battle I fought -- and lost -- awhile ago. Basically Wikipedia is extremely paranoid about copyright infringement. So basically under their rules (which were apparently revised some months ago) magazine cover images are not allowed under any circumstances unless the article itself is either about the publication or specifically about that particular issue. I've seen people try to get it to work by adding text about so-and-so appearing on the cover of Life magazine, but it is rarely accepted. So basically we are no longer allowed to use magazine articles in any way for illustration purposes, unless of course the magazine has gone into public domain. Not even as an illustration of a fashion model's work (which means if someone became famous as a result of being on the cover of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue in 1973, we can't show it. For some reason articles about comic books and characters are exempt. Jimbo Wales, the owner of Wikipedia, is also cracking down on the use of publicity images, and has stated outright that he'd prefer an article have no images than run the risk of infringing copyright. 23skidoo 22:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it was quite annoying. I personally think Wikipedia is just hurting itself by doing this and I can see a day when someone in charge might just say "no images, period." I mean, just look at the hoops we have to go through when it comes to book covers -- although they aren't insisting on it anymore (at least I hope not!), at one point we were being asked to put in long-winded rationales like "we need this image because the article is about the book and it is the only image available and no free images can be created". Translation: "I don't have time to draw my own handmade cover for The Saint Goes West so you'll have to settle for a scan!" It gets nutty sometimes -- and from what I hear articles involving images of new technologies and patents are even worse off. Oh well. 23skidoo 23:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Please do. Some of my copies are rather "ratty" to be polite (since all originated from used book stores, except for the British cover which my dad bought himself back in the 1970s). 23skidoo 23:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Saint's Lady

One of the coolest things I learned from flipping through Barer's book was that Charteris actually tried to get a fan-written novel published in 1979 (and one that features Patricia, yet). Since I've created a few articles on unpublished books (like The Dominators), I figured I'd create one on The Saint's Lady as well. 23skidoo 16:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Any images you have that you think are better -- or feature the original title of the book -- please feel free to replace what I have (don't worry about leaving me a note so I can remove the previous image - I'll see it on my Watchlist). I checked my copy of Saint On Guard and it definitely says it's from 1944, and Avon didn't do any Saint reprints after about 1956 or so ... at least according to the (sadly now defunct) Australian Saint website. Cheers! 23skidoo 07:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The new images look good. Well done. 23skidoo 23:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree on the images, although the one I had for Misfortunes (Saint in London) showing a guy in a prison cell actually did make sense ... though not until you read about 1/2 way through the book. (I love how Charteris opens Art of Alibi by complaining about his editor and insisting on giving details about some waiter who plays no part in the story!) Regarding the Roger Moores, the dates inside are only of the original publication dates of the books (i.e. 1935 etc). Barer's book says they were published in 1963 I believe (I need to doublecheck that date). Barer doesn't seem to like the Moore editions. I think they're kinda cool myself and except for Brighter Buccaneer, I have a full set (plus an oddball Roger Moore cover for MacFadden's reprint of Saint in the Sun from 1967 or thereabouts). Barer says Charteris never saw a penny from Fiction's editions, even though he wrote introductions for them. And some of the books omitted stories (Enter the Saint is missing one) or chapters (such as the prologue to Getaway). 23skidoo 21:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted the older versions of the book images. That Alias the Saint one is rather strange! I actually like the 1970s version better, but that was an illustration of the truncated version of the book, whereas the one you added is for a complete version so it's a better choice. I wonder why the cover of Saint and Mr. Teal has the stick figure wearing pirate costume -- you'd think that would be more appropriate for The Pirate Saint/Saint Overboard. Anyway I'm going to be off-Wiki for the next while due to some extremely heavy workload so I might not be able to respond to things in a timely fashion. For this reason, please leave a note on my talk page if you update any more covers otherwise I might miss them on my Watchlist. Thanks! 23skidoo 13:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I just got my hands on the 1980 edition of The Saint vs. Scotland Yard. Its a much better image than the Roger Moore cover (more accurate, too, as it shows Patricia Holm whereas the Moore image was just a random episode image) so I've changed the image. 23skidoo 20:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The cover was done by the same artist who drew the Charter Books edition of Meet the Tiger, and I think the intent was to give the Saint a retro look. For this series of books I prefer the other covers that make Templar resemble Ian Ogilvy, which is only fair (though strangely enough I think a number of the "Ogilvy" covers were actually made before Return of the Saint came along). I do like the look of Patricia Holm on these covers, though (I used the rendition from Meet the Tiger for the main art on her article). 23skidoo 21:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid my mental image was pretty well set by seeing Moore for years before I read a Saint book. However in recent months I've taken a liking to Vincent Price's radio performance as Templar to the point where I'm starting to hear his voice when I read the books rather than Moore's. (I'm taking a bit of a break from the Saint while I read a different book, but when I resume I'll be reading Boodle/Saint Intervenes.) 23skidoo 03:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charteris and Doubleday

Good rewrite of what I had, and you might note that there's now a Bet on the Saint article up (feel free to tweak it). I'm curious, though -- if Doubleday lost its right of first refusal with Bet on the Saint's rejection, why did Charteris continue dealing with them for another 15 years? Maybe Barer explains but I haven't gotten that far in the book. I only learned about Bet on the Saint thanks to an edit by "Hoppy Uniatz". Unfortunately it appears Burl Barer himself, who registered with Wikipedia under his own name and made one edit to the Templar article, seems to have faded into the background. I'm not reading Barer's book thoroughly because he gives out spoilers about various storylines, so I'm only reading so far and then I read the next couple of Saint books, and then I pick things up again. 23skidoo 00:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aleck Woollcott

Thank you for catching that; as far as I know, Edna Ferber never even worked at The New Yorker.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 02:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Good work on Alexander Woollcott. It was such a mess. It needed a good kick in the shins! --K72ndst 20:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV (September 2006)

The September 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 12:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SF

Science-fiction isn't hyphenated. Science-fiction redirects to Science fiction. I'm avoiding redirects. --Fang Aili talk 00:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

For one, yelling at me isn't very productive. In addition, there were only about 500 instances of "science-fiction" compared to thousands of "science fiction". Science-fiction is not hyphenated. If it was, why don't we have "military-fiction" or "crime-fiction"? I don't want to argue about this further with you so this will be my last message about this. --Fang Aili talk 13:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Science fiction

Hello,

I have Fang Aili's talk page on my watchlist, so I saw your discussion with him. I don't think there is anyway to force Fang Aili to revert the changes that he made from science-fiction to science fiction. If he were to continue to make those same changes, even after there seems to be clear consensus that he's wrong, there might be a case for disruption. If you haven't already, and are looking for more administrator opinions, you might consider posting on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Sue Anne 18:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second your motion re: Fang Aili

User:Fang Aili really is behaving badly, and all the more so because she's an admin and should be setting an example. Any additional comments or evidence that you need from me to pursue this, I'm at your disposal. I don't want to make an admin-enemy, but it's bad for the community in the long run if rank-and-file editors don't stand up to bad apples. --Tenebrae 02:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Allison and Van Ryn.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Allison and Van Ryn.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify 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 file 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 meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 18:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Color and stuff

I'm not exactly back full-time. Partly because of work and partly because my computer continues to be hammered by a brand new virus (I'm actually helping some tech experts figure out what it is) I haven't been able to do more than a few cursory edits. With regards to your question, I don't think the Wikipedia style allows for colors other than black (and blue for wikilinks) in regular text fields. You can use colors in an infobox or a userbox, but in the regular area it pretty much has to be italics or bolding if you want it to stand out. Part of that I think is because some people set their computers differently. You can, for example, set your computer to show bolded words or hotlinks as black, or red, or another color. So it might look weird if the regular text were to be changing colors. 23skidoo 05:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Back from holidays

I've been away for the last few days and am still catching up on e-mails and Wiki-matters. I'll give the Sci-Fi thread you passed along to me a look when I have a chance. (No luck finding anything on the Templar or Helm side during my little trip, except for a copy of the Saint Mystery Magazine from 1965) 23skidoo 00:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the print on demand -- I think part of the problem is pride. Hamilton (and/or his handlers) probably feel it would be beneath him to basically go to the vanity press; ditto Charteris. But there is a demand for their books -- I can attest to that by the fact that almost every bookstore whether it be here in Calgary or in Vancouver (and these are major centers) told me that Saint and Helm books are hard to come by because there's always a waiting list. The fact I was able to find so many in Vancouver was due to a mixture of luck and finding a shop that had them literally hidden away and if I didn't know where to look I wouldn't have found them. Incidentally, the user Hoppy Uniatz is actually one of the people in charge over at Saint.org; he says Barer is planning to publish more Saint novels and the one he did do, Capture the Saint, is supposed to be reissued next year. I'm guessing it'll probably be another one done just for the website, but that's better than nothing. I'm actually going through Saint withdrawal as I've spent the last couple weeks reading a non-Saint novel (as a bit of a palate-cleaner) and I can't wait to get back to reading the canon. During my trip I listened to a few more Saint radio shows with Vincent Price and he's now officially my favorite Saint actor -- he seems to hit all the right notes with the character and the stories I've heard are quite good. (Some were actually novelized by Charteris as shorts or novellas.) 23skidoo 02:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I definitely know the difference between vanity press and POD. The question is whether the people who handle the affairs of writers such as Hamilton and Charteris know the difference ... or if they're afraid that POD might be equated as vanity press by the public. Personally as long as the books are out there in a permanent form (I do not consider e-books to be permanent in any way) I would care if a zine published them. (In fact some so-called zine publishers publish higher quality material than many "mainstream" publishers -- see McSweeney's for example. Actually I've always thought McSweeney's would be a terrific publisher of Saint books. 23skidoo 04:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't call another editor an "imbecile"

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!

Stuff such as what you put in your edit summary for your changes to the Hyman G. Rickover article just isn't called for:

"(this is indeed an encyl. -- therefore it's not possible to put in a ref. to a novel that is about him? I have therefore created another section called Fictional references, imbecile)"

It just irritates others and makes you look petty. See Wikipedia's civility policy if you have any questions on the rules. --A. B. 16:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In case Fang blocks me

I've confront User:Fang Aili about her refusal to take responsbility for herself and clean up her mess, at [User_talk:Fang_Aili#List_of_ungrammatical_edits], so in case she has a hissy fit and blocks me, I'd like to ask you to bring up her behavior with an Admin. Hopefully my giving her a list of her ungrammatical edits will make it easy for her to construct a bot within its timestamp parameters, but who knows. Fingers crossed, and thanks. --Tenebrae 19:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I noted Tenebrae's comment on Fang's talk page. Since there's sometimes a lag in people responding (due to work, etc.) I'd like to give a couple of days for her to respond one way or the other before I do anything. I'm not very familiar with the function of bots -- I'm afraid you need to find another admin to actually make one -- but I can't see why someone couldn't create a bot to undo the changes made by Fang's bot ... less there's some Wikiquette rule prohibiting this. In terms of "science-fiction writer" vs. "science fiction writer" I actually tend to go without the hyphen because as I use the term, "science fiction" has a different connotation than "science-fiction" But that's just me. I'd also check to make sure such things fall within Wikipedia Style (as a reporter I know that some things considered ungrammatical in one context are fine within another). I doubt WP Style would contradict your view, however. The question re:Fang is whether she (or rather, her bot) has continued to make the changes or if it has stopped. 23skidoo 19:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links on the Templar page

I might need some support if the editor who believes the two links on the main ST page are spam decides to press the issue. I don't get his logic. One is simply a list of the airdates of the original shows (with a link to a site that sells copies of them, true, but it's a valid reference). The other is a page where you can download for free a bunch of Vincent Price episodes which are public domain so fair game under any Wikipedia rule. Sometimes I wonder if people bother to click the links before deleting them. 23skidoo 06:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martini

Nice shot there. I think the background color makes a difference. A Manhattan stands out better againts a black background, maybe? --The Yar 22:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I have with the Manhattan picture is the Canadian Whiskey. The Borough of Manhattan is in the United State of New York!! As the article indicates, American whiskey is a key ingredient. The one I am enjoying now is made with Jack Daniel's Single Barrel. Also, make sure you tag the image properly to note that you donate it to public domain. --The Yar 03:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think the article also says that it is frequently (or at least sometimes) made with Canadian. At least in New England. I thought I had the image tagged right, but I'll go take another look at it. If you don't see it correctly tagged within the next couple of days, will you either do it yourself OR tell me exactly what to do -- all of these different Wiki image tags drive me BANANAS! Hayford Peirce 18:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Manhattan Cocktail2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Manhattan Cocktail2.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WARNING! This person is a porn PEDDLER!

This guy and Jimbo Wales are porn peddlers! Get rid of 'em before they start linking to child porno!2HOT2 17:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)2


[edit] TikiQueen - acting just like someone else we know?

Judging from recent edits to Tiki culture. Kahuroa 00:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RM

Please try to follow the directions in listing pages at WP:RM for the future. The format has been changed slightly. Thanks. —Mets501 (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Took a look at some of your work

Nice editing, and nice image of the makings for a Manhattan (cocktail). Two thing you might enjoy for a variation on a theme: 1) bourbon soaked sour cherries, found at Trader Joes; 2) Makers Mark® bourbon, deep smoky taste, fine for tasting straight up, but not so precious mixing with it is a waste. JimCApitol3 02:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 20:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ACC

You wrote: "choosing a Magnum Opus is 100% a subjective POV thing -- unless you can cite, say, 10 authoritative references for your own choice. so I've removed this category."

Actually, I agreewith you on this one. ;-) Jason Palpatine 18:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dorothy Parker & "transgressive art"

The term transgressive art does apply to some; f'rinstance, the article mentions Andy Warhol. It just doesn't apply to Parker; I think whoever put that in there was confusing her acid tongue with some kind of postmodern attitude (or something). +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Think the Vance article is open for business again?

Gee, it's gotten quiet there since Paul Rhoads gave chapter and verse on the VIE's status as a set of real books. I can't believe there hasn't been some slap-back somewhere I haven't thought to look. Anyhow, even though my own book still isn't finished, maybe I'll be able to find some time to do a few edits and see if I can start to turn it into something more like a reference article. Glad you found the Variable Star review useful. I just got a copy of the big JV Treasury volume that I hope to be able to get to in the next month or two. RLetson 20:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Jones

Hey, I was wondering what you thought was wrong with my edit. I changed it from a solid page and a few indexes to a sectioned entry. I don't think I deleted much, but if I did it would be best if you posted it on the new page. I'm in the middle of adding references I also added a section on his drinking and substance abuse and a section on his marriages.

I kept some of the praise, but removed the excessive Monroe quote. The introduction was about 15 paragraphs long when I started.

Why, may I ask, do you need to remove the section on marriage, most of the section on drinking, and keep the useless subtitle under "recent albums?"

I'm working on a re-write with sources. Tell me what was cut from the original that you would like in the final, and I'd be glad to include it. (Ultramontane)

[edit] Image:Casey Stengel Time Cover.jpg

Hello. In order for this image to qualify as fair use, the article would have to actually discuss/describe that issue of the magazine. The usage of Image:BSpearsRstone99.jpg in the Britney Spears article is an example of this. As it is now, it's being used solely for decorative purposes, which is not within the boundaries of fair use. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's not much can be done about this. Wikipedia has basically banned magazine covers (even using them in articles about the magazines is a bit iffy). If the guy was named Man of the Year or received some other sort of accolade it's possible, but right now there isn't much defence. If you can write a section on that particular magazine issue, then you might be able to argue that you're fulfilling the fair use criteria. 23skidoo 01:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I just encountered a situation where a book cover was removed because someone alleged it violated fair use -- even though the article was about the book in question. I have maintained for awhile that once they start banning those types of images I'm out of here. I'm just hoping it's a knee-jerk reaction or a misinterpretation and not just another "change with the wind". 23skidoo 13:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Give it a try and see what happens. 23skidoo 04:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Holmes

The person who keeps editing the John Holmes page to include unverified information about a supposed biography that backs up the unsubstantiated "Annie" story, is a woman who is obsessed with the murders. She has been peddling that story all over the internet but it was thoroughly debunked by a writer and his webmaster. The story is here. There is no biography, there is no truth to the story, and she has a long history of inserting herself into high profile murder cases. Someone needs to get an admin involved, but because I'm not a regular contributor to Wikipedia I'm hoping you'll do it. She will continue creating new identities and reposting the information without end if her prior behavior on other web sites is any indication. Thanks.

All of the documentation has been collected here. I can provide her current IP address, as of a few days ago, if that helps.

Adding 10/14- Thank you for helping out with this Hayford. I want to give you a few more details to arm yourself because the story will no doubt be restored with "sources" that look legitimate but they will not be credible. These are the ones she has named so far:

  • IMDB - The Internet Movie Database. This was a message board for the film Wonderland (which was about the murders), and the story was posted by herself as an individual, and not as a part of the official web site. The postings aren't even there anymore.
  • Lions Gate - Another message board for the movie, but it no longer exists. There was never anything on the official site about "Annie", only individual postings by the woman on the boards.
  • Wonderland.com - This site is not related to the movie, the murders, the story, or John Holmes in any way so it is a completely fabricated "source". The writer who originally exposed the story has a blog at 8763wonderland.com, but the blogs of individuals aren't credible sources, and he only links to If Wishes Were Fishes (another individual blog) and Women Who Kill anyway.
  • Women Who Kill - This web site is run by an individual, and the documentation is saved copies of the above IMDB postings, so not a credible source for the original story, and the postings don't verify the story anyway.
  • Express Times - The article no longer exists on the internet, but it only goes into the other high profile murder she confessed to, and it doesn't provide any verification or connection to the John Holmes story she is telling. I have a screenshot which I will be putting up on Women Who Kill later today.
  • Court TV - This again is about the murder she confessed to in 1993, and doesn't provide any verification or connection to the John Holmes story.
  • The obituary - She cites Ancestry.com and the Columbus Dispatch. In actuality the obituary was printed in the Marion Star and proven to be fake. It was removed from the Star's web site and retracted. There are no clippings, but the individual at the paper who investigated can verify this. Ancestry.com picks up the obituaries from a database and wouldn't have received the retraction, so that is not verification of anything. She states "the truth will never be known" about the obituary, but in fact it is known that she is still alive and the obituary was falsified, down to the last detail.
  • The biography she cites simply doesn't exist, so if she comes up with a publisher, title and page numbers it should be easy to verify that it is fabricated.

I think I'll also post this on the talk page for the John Holmes article for the benefit of other editors. Thanks again MeAgain2006 19:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Marx (writer, tennis)

Nicely done. Bravo. LorenzoPerosi1898 00:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SSDI

SSDI is the Social Security Death Index, which can be found several places on the Web. The one I use is http://ssdi.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ssdi.cgi. It's extremely useful for finding birth and death dates of any American who died from about 1950 onward, as long as their name is not too common. NawlinWiki 03:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hitting the trail

After quite a bit of consideration and after having a proverbial "straw breaking camel's back" with regards to some legitimate images I posted (which are being removed with the silliest rationale I have ever encountered), I have decided to abandon Wikipedia. As I was explaining to a fellow editor, I also spend way too much time here when I should be off seeing the world ... or at least losing this spare tire of mine. I'm not going to delete my account, so you should still be able to reach me via the "E-mail this user" function, and I might still sneak in anonymously to continue adding plot descriptions to the Saint books (I'm just starting The Saint in New York), but I'm really tired of the politics around here and if they want me to play their game, they have to start paying me and since that isn't going to happen, better for me to just walk away. Cheers! 23skidoo 22:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Rod Laver 2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rod Laver 2.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] science fiction

Either the phrase is science fiction, or it is science-fiction. Pick a usage. Dyslexic agnostic 17:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Science fiction film is without hyphen, but science-fiction operas is with? Fine, keep grasping to that raft, buddy, if if helps you sleep... Dyslexic agnostic 17:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Every on-line community I've ever been part of has been subject to these social oddities--everything from misunderstandings to spats to flame wars and meltdowns. People get het up over the strangest things. I've gotten in the habit of writing snotty replies in Notepad and then deleting them and writing much milder ones to post (or not posting at all). Kind of a rhetorical version of the carpenter's motto: "measure twice, cut once." RLetson 04:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saint in New York

Well I've finally read "the biggie", The Saint in New York. I liked it, although it certainly felt different from previous Saint books. I can see why it was so successful in the US, considering it came out right after Prohibition ended and at a time when organized crime still ran rampant in places like New York. It's a shame the "usual cast" of characters virtually disappear (Pat Holm has the briefest of cameos and Teal is also only mentioned in passing). Back to our earlier discussion of short stories vs. novels, I find the novels have a much different feel than the shorter pieces. For one thing they tend to be more violent, with the Saint truly acting more like an outlaw. The novellas for the most part feel like episodes of the TV series -- good, self-contained adventures that bring out new elements in the Saint's character, while the short stories come off as quick morality plays and occasionally shaggy dog-style stories. Now it's on to "Saint Overboard" thought I might take a time-out to read something non-Saint for a bit. 23skidoo 13:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's the Big Fellow book. I'll grant you it's a bit cliched, but the question is whether it was cliched back in 1935. I'm not very familiar with Hemingway's style so I can't comment there. I don't think he goes too overboard in terms of descriptions, etc. It's not my favorite of the novels (I still like She Was a Lady the best, followed very closely by Getaway), but it's not bad. I hope someone gets around to releasing the Saint movies on DVD - I'd like to see how the movie handles the story. 23skidoo 02:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VI - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] He Stopped Loving Her Today link

The link I took out earlier pointed to a blog, which is specifically discouraged in the guidelines for linking outside Wikipedia. The same IP address had added links to 4 or 5 articles within the space of 30 minutes, all pointing to the same blog. This appears to be spamming, so I've removed it again. If you feel that I'm mistaken, perhaps we could start a discussion at the article's talk page and get some feedback from other editors. Joyous! | Talk 01:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:HP2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HP2.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Babe Ruth Edits

Hi there. I saw you contributed some edits to the article on Ruth, specifically [1] and [2]. I reverted the comment changes on his death. You sated in your reason for adding back in the information as: "restored info about his death inexplicably removed from article at some point. all of this is heavily sourced and of general interest -- why would anyone remove it?"

This was explained here. Further to the point, you cannot add information under the argument that: It can be found in a number of sources. If you would like to include information that is debatable, you should provide an inline source. Please avoid personal attacks as you have here. I am going to rv those changes again for the reasons noted about. If you would like to engage in a conversation, please create a topic on the talk page for the article. Happy editing. // Tecmobowl 04:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotation on John Holmes (actor)

Even if the source was censored, the article is referencing a statement by Sharon Holmes, not the source itself...But yeah, this quotation doesn't even seem to be real. johnpseudo 06:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Boucher article

Hello,

I realize the proper format is to have the entire name in bold; however, in this case, the source lists his name alphabetically as "Parker White" and I thought it would be easier to find him that way.

Regards,

Michael David 00:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Thanks for catching the vandalism. This "hen fap" bandit reemerges from time to time and I always block him. All he does is add the words "hen fap" to articles. I'm a target because I've blocked him before. If you see any further "hen fap" nonsense in any articles, please let me know. 23skidoo 21:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I did a Google search back when it started out. Couldn't find anything. I think it's just some deranged ravings, or a private in-joke. Some of the vandals in this place are decidedly one-note. There's Mr. Hen Fap, and then we have some guy who visits articles on dead movie stars adding that they spent their retirement collecting salt and pepper shakers. And there's another fellow I encounter from time to time who seems to think Wikipedia is his own personal blog, and he also posts messages to himself on his talk page. Must be lonely. 23skidoo 23:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saint update

Note my reply to the vandalism thread (since I'm starting a new topic). I'm still moving along with the Charteris canon. I'm just starting The Ace of Knaves after having read Saint in New York and Saint Overboard back-to-back. I already discussed the NY book; Saint Overboard is very weird. It seems almost as if Charteris was attempting a reboot of Templar; there's no mention of Holm anywhere, and the relationship between Templar and Loretta Page is very similar to how he introduced Holm and Templar in Meet the Tiger. It'll be interesting to see how Ace of Knaves addresses this (if at all) since I know Holm continues to be a part of the books for at least another decade. 23skidoo 23:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

In the early chapters, I was actually under the impression that the book might take place prior to Meet the Tiger, since it just had Templar and Orace roaming around. There was no reference to New York at all (and Charteris was usually good about linking novels together), so I actually assumed this was the case. But then he brings in Roger Conway, Peter Quentin and gives Hoppy and Teal a brief mention, so that has to place the story after at least the shorts in Brighter Buccaneer where Quentin debuts. But there is not a single mention of Holm and Templar falls head over heels for the female Pinkerton-type Loretta Page. But I just started reading Ace of Knaves and he's back living the Bohemian life with Patricia again, as if nothing happened. And Charteris is back to his old references again by having Patricia chide Templar for being away from London for so long. So I don't know ... maybe Charteris was trying to shake things up a bit. Overboard was a pretty good book and actually reminded me quite a bit of some of Ian Fleming's Bond novels. (I still contend that Fleming must have been influenced by Charteris as the two writers have a very similar style). Speaking of Fleming, I highly recommend the new Casino Royale movie; I was a little dubious going in but I think they've given the Bond franchise a sparkling new coat of paint and at the same time did justice to the novel. 23skidoo 04:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Burl Barer's book confirms that Charteris definitely recycled material. She Was a Lady was a rewrite of a non-Saint story, and at least one of the Boodle stories was this way too. Starting in the 1940s many of the short stories Charteris wrote were in fact based upon either the comic strip or the radio show, and another was based upon an RKO film story that never got made. He also recycled Saint stories, rewriting magazine stories sometimes 15 years later. So I think you hit the nail on the head there. 23skidoo 16:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it a team. To my knowledge the stories he reworked were his own work, since he did write scenarios for RKO and wrote comics and early radio episodes. So it's more a case of "recycing oneself". Interestingly, some recycled work such as She Was a Lady and The Man Who Liked Toys had been previously published, too, yet he managed to get away with it. Barer does mention that the idea of using a ghostwriter or "collaboration" as the later books used, was actually floated around as early as 1950 or thereabouts, when the publishers started to express some annoyance that Charteris was only filing short stories and not full novels. But as you know it wasn't till Harry Harrison wrote Vendetta in 1963 that this became practice. 23skidoo 20:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philips vandal

I went to check it out but someone beat me to it -- Smurfman has already been permabanned. 23skidoo 19:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously Smurfman is just a little kid who has found himself a new toy. If he keeps it up there are ways of blocking him at the IP level. Unfortunately he's probably just using a computer in his elementary school library. 23skidoo 19:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Using a little trick I know I was actually able to locate a Smurfman2 account that hadn't yet been used to edit any articles, and I've blocked it indefinitely as well. 23skidoo 19:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, neat trick! Can you tell me how to do that? Let me clarifye some things. One, I'm not in elementary school (I just let my immature side control my decisions [vandalizing The PA page]) Two, I'm using a computer in the world's largest secondary school library, so don't diss it. Three, while this is the last vandalism I'm going to perpetrate, I cannot stop the rest of Exeter Academy from doing so, so if you see vandalism on the Andover page, don't automatically assume it's me. Send this message to the rest of the peolpe "watching" the Andover page, so that they know not to waste any more time. A fellow Exonian 19:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • This guy left me a similar message. Taking with a grain of salt, as you can imagine. 23skidoo 03:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey man, I'm done being a prick. I'm just sorry I wasted my time. And yes, I'm an Exonian. I guess I was just being stubborn about Exeter losing the E/A football game. Oh, and Hayford Peirce, did I see you at the E/A football game? You look familiar.

[edit] Nero Wolfe

Thanks for your edits to Nero Wolfe. I'm sorry you didn't care for my editing. There was no intention to remove important information, or any information, and thank you for restoring any that might have been reverted inadvertently. I also accept your correction regarding Harvard College vs. Harvard University; I believe that he would have been an undergradate at both, since one is a subset of the other, but I agree "College" is more precise.

I was thinking of making a major effort to work on this article, reorganizing it, including additional references including quotations from the McAleer biography of Stout and other works, and making the book and story summaries more complete and uniform, but being told in two successive edit summaries that my editing isn't particularly good is unencouraging, so I'd welcome any thought you might have for developing this and the related articles. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think part of what I was changing was trying to move material that I did not necessary see as fitting into the opening paragraph(s) which is not to say that it didn't belong anywhere in the article. In any event, I will try to put some effort into the novel/story summaries in the next couple of weeks. Newyorkbrad 22:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radio link deletor

I haven't a clue what this anon is going on about. He keeps citing some "Old Time Radio policy" but I can find nothing to support his claims. He's apparently removing the link from a bunch of articles. Oh well, you and I have the Saint covered, you have Nero Wolfe I see, and Kevinlewis from the NovelsWikiProject is also on the guy's case. If he continues to make these edits claiming authority and doesn't register an account I might start assuming bad faith and block him. I'm not in the mood to deal with this sort of thing today for very long. 23skidoo 21:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, people go on about NPOV, yet there are some editors who clearly edit with an agenda. I just found one who is going around replacing book covers with "free alternates" (resulting in very dull images since most books published before 1923 didn't have illustrated covers). The comment left on my talk seems to suggest that the interpretation of the fair use rules have changed again. Maybe this guy going after the radio shows is part of it. I know in the case of the Simon Templar shows there is some controversy over whether the shows are PD or not. The site claims they are but the editor going by the name Hoppy Uniatz says differently. I've dealt with true spam on Wikipedia before, and believe me this isn't spam. 23skidoo 22:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Songs In Top 100 Since 1955 — (In parentheses: weeks at #1, #2, or #3)[8]

The only problem I have this is the "--- (in parentheses: weeks at #1, #2, or#3)" I don't think that the George Jones pages really needs that part becasue you can tell what it means just by looking at the chart that you have made.

Thank you,
Alakey2010, 04 December 2006, 06:32pm (CDT)

I took the problematic wording and placed it on its own line. It is needed, and it also links to a reference, so it should not be deleted. But it is a little cumbersome to have as a section header (and I believe WP:STYLE frowns upon having links in headers anyway). Let's see how this works. 23skidoo 15:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dorothyparker.com linkspam

Hi, the links I just reomved were inappropriate per WP:EL. I don't think I've been removing radio links under another IP address (certainly not in the past few weeks) but it's possible, and you're certainly entitled to discuss this with admins if you want (I'd expect any admin intervention should be in the direction of keeping the links out, not putting them back in). Right now I'm mostly removing spam links promoting Algonquin Hotel "walking tours". Please do not reinsert them. Regards, 67.117.130.181 03:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VII - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pecan

Caps for species names is a widely accepted style on wikipedia (as also done by e.g. most field guides) - see WP:PLANTS. Your reversion also deleted other important information (an interwiki) and is wholly unwarranted. - MPF 00:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hayford - if you take a look at the species in Category:Fagales (the category to which Pecan belongs), you'll find that caps are used for common names for all of them (e.g. Black Walnut, Paper Birch, etc). For past discussions on use of capitals, look through the archives of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life, where it has been debated several times and not resolved, allowing both, but it is best to retain consistency within a category. There are several practical benefits for using capitals. First, e.g. wild cherry (any species of Prunus in its native environment) is not the same as Wild Cherry (the specific English name of Prunus avium). Second, it introduces consistency and uniformity of treatment (lists with names randomly capitalised and not capitalised look awful), and predictability. Third, in many cases, how does one know if a name is derived from a proper noun or not? - it is surprisingly difficult to know in many cases. Is e.g. Pohutukawa a proper name? Or Kusamaki? I think it is unreasonable to have to expect people to delve into Maori, Japanese, etc., etymology to find out whether to use a capital or not. Pecan is itself a case in point here - it is a Native American name, does anyone know its etymology well enough to know that it might not be derived from a proper name? Hope this helps - MPF 11:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vinnie Richards images

I did give a reason see

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Image%3AVinnie+Richards+Cover.jpg

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=image%3AVinnie+Richards.jpg

Geni 16:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy holidays!

Just wanted to drop you a quick note that I'm going to be away on Christmas holidays from Dec. 18 to Jan. 5 so I'll be offline for most of that time (unless I get to an internet cafe or something). Time to get caught up on my Saint reading! I hope you have a terrific holiday season and all the best for 2007! 23skidoo 17:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal alert

Hi. I was just checking in during a break from "house-sitting" for my brother and I saw a new user was going around posting images of Hitler to articles like The Saint Goes On. You might want to keep an eye out for any recurrence of this. I've blocked the guy for 2 days (he's a brand new user), but it's possible he could retaliate in some way. Cheers. 23skidoo 17:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ISFDB

Hayford, we corresponded a bit over John W. Campbell, Jr.; I don't know if you recall. I just wanted to let you know that the ISFDB has opened up for public editing, with a supporting wiki. The idea is that people with bibliographic interests who have sf collections can update the ISFDB for themselves. I thought you might be interested. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South Pacific (musical)

Hi. You changed my edit yesterday on South Pacific (musical) and you wrote the comment: "reverted after apparent vandalism, or dumb editing". I don't know why you did that, i wonder if the new page South Pacific (2001 film) had not showed up for you yet? If you got a red link, you would still have seen the new page if you had clicked the red link. I don't know, or did you want to keep the article about the TV version in both articles? Please explain, oh and writing "dumb editing"... you could write "incorrect editing" or another more friendly term in the future. Bib 15:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your reply (on my talk page). Bib 18:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tennis Scoring

Please see this reference from the LTA about the stations of the clock for scoring: http://www.lta.org.uk/AboutUs/History/Scoring/. I believe that, although it's not definitive, it's useful to point out the possibility of the stations of the clock as the origin for tennis's strange scoring method. It seems very plausible (but, again, not definitive) that this is the proper explanation. I do intend to do further research. Comments? JJ 15:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

See the wording I used, in particular, "It is possible ... ". JJ 23:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nero Wolfe

I'm content with your editing of my Wolfe additions of the past few days. One glaring omission from the text is any extended discussion of Wolfe as a gourmand. I hope to post additional material on this topic within the next few days although I don't regard myself as a qualified "foodie."

[edit] Twist serve

My apologies. I know little about tennis, but that sentence seemed awkward and that's how it appeared. Thank you for correcting me. Just H 04:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Perhaps we can fix that sentence. If I understand correctly from that sentence now, it's used as a safe second serve because it's harder to return?Just H 06:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] language desk/Dennett edit

hi, i asked here some questions that relate to your recent edit of Daniel Dennett. it is supposed to yield a general response, not to avoid a dialog, and i'll be happy to see you reply in either way. trespassers william 21:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up

That anon with the bee in his bonnet regarding radio show links seems to be on the prowl again. I haven't seen him removing any links from any of "my" articles (i.e. Saint, Crime Club, etc) but you might want to keep an eye on Nero Wolfe, etc. 23skidoo 06:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The guy is really on a roll. His latest comments at User talk:76.170.239.56‎ about me rich. He claims I'm a sockpuppet of another user, and that I am continuing to post libellous comments about him. He's an outright liar that guy. I don't know why someone doesn't just ban him permanently. I'd do so myself, but can't due to conflict of interest. 23skidoo 06:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caps

Best thing I can suggest is check the Manual of Style. The way you describe it makes it sound as if this article is being written as an advertisement, which might also be grounds for not using the all-caps. In the media it varies from publication to publication. But I'm not aware of a specific rule. Regarding the "mad reverter" the anon (who still won't admit to being that registered user who left in a huff) has taken the radio links thing to the next level, starting a thread on the issue here. 23skidoo 01:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Wimbledon Courts From Air.jpg

You may want to take a look at this image you uploaded. It lacks source information, and a rationale for being used (as it's tagged as non-free). Currently, it's not being used in any article, partially due to these problems.

If you don't plan to use this image anymore, just ignore this message, and some admin will eventually take care of it. Best regards, --Abu Badali 17:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers

I haven't a clue. They started turning up about a month ago but I can't seem to find any information about them. I must assume they're some sort of statistical thing. 23skidoo 19:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Campbell cites

Hayford, I just emailed you some info for the Campbell article; let me know if you don't get it--I've had some email troubles. Mike Christie (talk) 04:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amelia Earhart article

This is the current introductory paragraph: "Amelia Mary Earhart (July 24, 1897 – missing as of July 2, 1937) was a noted American aviator who disappeared over the central Pacific Ocean during a circumnavigational flight attempt in 1937. She was an influential early female pilot and the first woman to receive the Distinguished Flying Cross."

I had submitted the following: "Amelia Mary Earhart' (July 24, 1897 – missing as of July 2, 1937) was a noted American aviator whose aviation career included many milestones. She became the first woman and second pilot to fly solo across the Atlantic, on the fifth anniversary of Charles Lindbergh's Atlantic crossing. She was an influential early female pilot who was instrumental in the formation of The Ninety-Nines, a women's pilots' organization. Among her many awards and achievements, Earhart was the first woman to receive the Distinguished Flying Cross. After setting numerous records, she disappeared over the central Pacific Ocean during a circumnavigational flight attempt in 1937, sparking a near-mythical public fascination with her life, career and ultimate disappearance." Word count: 116 words.

It was removed by another editor who indicated: 1. Introductory passage is too long 2. Citing wordy headers in other flawed articles doesn't solve the PoV and clarity issue here at all 3. It's far too long and sounds like a promotional blurb. When you've finished expanding the article body I plan on discussing the cheerleading PoV there too. If we need to start citing WP policy that's ok.

Hayford, I value your opinion, what do you think about my edit? FYI the Wikipedia articles on Thomas Jefferson was 250 words, Abraham Lincoln: 147 and the Wright Brothers: 199 words. Bzuk 12:40 22 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Unsupported accusations, abuse of edit summaries

Please accept this as a polite request to stop making unsupported accusations on the Earhart talk page and stop the use of threats and other abusive remarks in your edit summaries. Thank you. Gwen Gale 04:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trolls

Please review Wikipedia:What is a troll. Trolling is a deliberate, bad faith attempt to disrupt the editing of Wikipedia ...Genuine dissent is not trolling. I'm only saying that the AE article header reads like a press release written by GP. Since none of you seem to know who GP is, for starters, I suggest you ask me over on the talk page. Thanks and no, I'm not playing games, I'm trying to understand how much y'all know about this topic. Gwen Gale 18:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the above comments

I was going to leave a general comment regarding the anon you reverted on my talk page, but the above two postings have gotten my attention. Please see my posting to the user here. I know I'm sticking my neck in, but from all evidence that I can see, the two accusations being made above are unfounded and without merit. 23skidoo 04:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the diff wherein Hayford Peirce made the utterly unfounded, uninformed and careless accusation. So far as I know the issue has been resolved and there are no hard feelings on my part, I'm only providing this citation to show the basis of my response. Cheers to you both! :) Gwen Gale 17:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mayonnaise

I wasn't the one who removed the paragraph in the first place; the new version just felt more right to me. Purely a matter of taste, I suppose. Thank you for your rewrite, in any case. 18:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism on my userpage

Thanks again for handling that bit of vandalism. The only reason it happened was because another admin unprotected the page without consulting with me first. It's protected again so that should be the end of that for awhile. 23skidoo 02:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

When I went to re-protect the page, I noticed that one must now specify a duration for the protection. That might have been why he unprotected it. But it still would have been nice to explain the reasoning to me. And the evidence shows that that page needs protection for a good reason. Part of the problem is I'm the first listed administrator because my handle is the only one that starts with a number. (I keep hoping a new admin comes along with a handle starting with the number 1). So people with no lives who like to cause trouble take a look at the admin list, see me, and I'm an easy target. Incidentally the reason I put that "don't add me to categories" thing was because I noticed a number of categories being created to try and pigeonhole administrators, so I wanted to stop that. If one of the userboxes puts me in a category, that's fine, but at least I chose the userbox. On another topic, I'm not getting involved in the Earhart situation unless it's requested. I reacted to the messages left here as I felt they were somewhat out-of-line based upon having no reference to what she was complaining abou and no indication at the Earhart pages. I don't think your comments (as cited) warranted the reaction, but the user in question has indicated she wants to drop the matter, so unless you want to pick it up, we can leave it there. 23skidoo 05:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned images?

I happened to notice that you removed two orphaned image notices from this page, with the comment "removed strange bot additions." This suggests you may not have understood the purpose of the notices. They were just meant to inform that two images you uploaded are in fact not used in any articles. The idea is that you should either delete them / request they be deleted, or go ahead and use them somewhere. -- IslandGyrl 18:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Riggs-Court

Hey there. Actually, the information about this match is in the "Career timeline" section of her article. But I understand your basic point and agree that it is sufficiently notable to be discussed in the "Biography" section instead. Cheers. Tennis expert 05:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Alias the Saint1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Alias the Saint1.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 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 08:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I just noticed the above and went to check. It looks like you had uploaded a second version of this cover at one point. I can go ahead and delete it if you'd like or you can just let the system handle it. 23skidoo 14:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catboner vandal

I've blocked the IP for 24 hours, but since it is an IP, I can't do more than that, I'm afraid. Indefinite blocks are only allowed for IPs in extreme cases when it can be confirmed that no other users are likely to be affected. This is probably a school machine. Someone has already protected the Phillips page, I see. 23skidoo 14:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Jack Crawford Time Cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jack Crawford Time Cover.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 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 22:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dorothy Parker

Rather than cut out someone's addition, why don't you flag it and bring it to the discussion page? The item on Carla Bruni is kind of a big deal. The songs were mentioned on CNN and other places this week. I added a references link to that section. Thanks. --K72ndst 04:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Woollcott

If you read the discussion page for Alexander Woollcott: it is Shubert, not Schubert, as every Broadway theatergoer knows. --K72ndst 21:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rosewall article

Thanks very much. Like you, I have thought for a long time that the article needs to be reworked. But the magnitude of the task seemed too severe. I finally decided to start working on the article section-by-section and tackled probably the easiest section to edit, Rosewall's amateur career. But I'm not happy with the way that section flows and would welcome your enhancements. One major aspect I don't like is the lack of a narrative description of his amateur career. Statistics and match results are fine, but there needs to be interesting context. Best regards! Tennis expert 23:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheesesteak

Hello and thanks for your input on the Cheesesteak article. Please see my response to your edit on the associated talk page. Cheers! --Thisisbossi 05:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who is Babe Ruth? Sounds like a playmate from the 50ies.

Talk pages are there for exchange between editors, "edit" "summaries" are just that. Anyway, if I correctly interpreted what you wrote in your edit summary here, you asked me if I'd insist on references for a similar assertion on Babe Ruth. Answer: Yes, of course. An extraordinarily strong assertion like "generally considered to be one of the greatest of all time" needs extraordinarily good references, otherwise it would be non-verifiable, non-neutral and possibly original research and should definitely be deleted in order to improve the article. Well, I gave you a chance instead of deleting this at once, and you provided two sources, and thank you for that. In my private life, I'm a fan of Pete Sampras and the stellar tennis he played - but this is not my soapbox, it's an online encyclopedia project, and I am trying to honour all the work others have done and are doing by taking it serious. Just like you. End of discussion, case closed. —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

Just a friendly heads-up - the {{sprotected}} template doesn't actually protect a page - it just adds the message. Only an administrator can protect a page, but anyone can request protection at WP:RPP. Anyway, I think the problem on Mammary intercourse is only with one individual - his IP was blocked, and the image that has been added repeatedly is listed for a deletion discussion, and in the meantime can only be added to an the article by an administrator. RJASE1 Talk 13:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turkeyman

Someone beat me to it; it was already gone before I got there. Cheers! 23skidoo 19:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main Templar article

We may need to keep an eye on the main Simon Templar article as someone who is obviously a big Val Kilmer fan tried to place an image of Kilmer as the lead picture for the article, and the infobox was obviously based upon the film rather than the books (anyone who reads Charteris knows Templar prefers his knives over a pistol). I've tried to fix things up and have asked the user to explain his rationale in the talk page, so we'll see what happens. The image he'd placed has already been flagged for deletion anyway as it wasn't tagged properly. Incidentally, for those keeping score, I just finished Prelude for War (not one of the better Saint books but Charteris makes some very accurate predictions about WW2). I'm taking a break from the Saint for a bit while I read some Doctor Who and a couple of non-fiction books, and then it's on to Follow the Saint. 23skidoo 04:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree it isn't vandalism though it looks like the editor is about to get a little slap on the wrist for uploading images with no licensing info. I haven't read any Hamilton in a long time, mainly because of my Saint reading project, and more recently I've gotten back into reading Doctor Who books again because of the brilliant series revival on TV. I found a goody a few days ago, though, a paperback of essays by Hamilton called On Guns and Hunting. Looks interesting. 23skidoo 04:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources discussion

Did you intend to leave that message with Mattisse on my talk page? Just checking in case you'd accidentally left it there. I agree that the new standards are going render stubs out of many articles. This might be the straw that breaks this camel's back and makes me abandon Wikipedia for good. I have an article on Bill Haley that I fear is about to be destroyed (and I don't care if WP:OWN says no one owns the articles; I still put in a lot of time and effort for FREE on that thing). 23skidoo 16:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Pancho Segura.jpg

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Tilden Hitting an Overhead.jpg

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC) {subst:image source|Image:Hoad Backhand Volley.jpg}} Abu badali (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Gonzales Against Roche 1968.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Gonzales Against Roche 1968.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Abu badali (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Gonzales Hitting Backhand Volley.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Gonzales Hitting Backhand Volley.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Abu badali (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Gonzales Serving.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Gonzales Serving.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Abu badali (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Jack Kramer Volleying.jpg

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Tilden at the Baseline.jpg

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Rosewall Volleying Wimbledon 1970.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rosewall Volleying Wimbledon 1970.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Vinnie Richards2.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Vinnie Richards2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Abu badali (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your auto-biography on Wikipedia

Hi, Mr. Peirce. I noticed that, other than for minnor cosmetic changes (like adding or removing categories or reverting vandalism), you're the only contributor to the article you created about yourself. In the case you haven't yet, you may be interested in reading Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia policies dealing with, among other things, editors writing about themselves.

I also noticed that some of the information you added in your article in unsourced, just as well as an (imho) overall feeling of lack of notability (please, don't be offended. Someone not being notable doesn't means his not important).

I will edit you autobiography to ask for some sources where I feel they are necessary (please, don't think this means I don't believe those passages to be true).

Also, I ask you to try not to feel offended if your Wikipedia autobiography is nominated for deletion (depending on the outcome of the source-asking).

You may want to read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David McJonathan-Swarm for a (maybe) similar case.

Best regards, --Abu badali (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Rod Laver 2.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Rod Laver 2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Abu badali (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Tilden in the 1920s.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tilden in the 1920s.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Bill Johnston.jpg

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Budge against Perry.jpg

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Young Gonzales.jpg

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bill Johnston and Bill Tilden.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bill Johnston and Bill Tilden.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Abu badali (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:1925 Davis Cup Team.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:1925 Davis Cup Team.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Abu badali (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Tilden and Dempsey.jpg

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

{subst:image source|Image:Tilden and Kozeluh.jpg}} Abu badali (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bill Tilden Hitting a Backhand.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bill Tilden Hitting a Backhand.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Abu badali (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Pasarell Cropped.jpg

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Vinnie Richards Cover2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Vinnie Richards Cover2.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 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. Abu badali (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Karel Kozeluh Photo.jpg

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Rosewall and Sedgman 1954.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rosewall and Sedgman 1954.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Sedgman Volleying.jpg

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Sedgman Volleying 2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sedgman Volleying 2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Kramer and Sedgman.jpg

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Pancho Segura.jpg

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Segura Roland Garros 1946.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Segura Roland Garros 1946.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Kramer and Sedgman.jpg

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Vines 1933.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Vines 1933.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Jack Crawford and Harry Hopman 1930s.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jack Crawford and Harry Hopman 1930s.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Borotra.jpg

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Borotra and Cochet.jpg

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Cochet 1924.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cochet 1924.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Brugnon and Borotra.jpg

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:The Four Musketeers with Coach.jpg

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Vivian McGrath 1934.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Vivian McGrath 1934.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Tom Brown 1946.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tom Brown 1946.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Kramer and Brown Wimbledon 1947.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kramer and Brown Wimbledon 1947.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Schroeder Wimbledon 1949.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Schroeder Wimbledon 1949.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:1945 Davis Cup Players.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1945 Davis Cup Players.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Schroeder and Trabert Davis Cup 1951.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Schroeder and Trabert Davis Cup 1951.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Ted Schroeder Volleying.jpg

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Schroeder and Kramer Doubles.jpg

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Young Bobby Riggs 3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Young Bobby Riggs 3.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Young Bobby Riggs 2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Young Bobby Riggs 2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Rosewall and Hoad 1954.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rosewall and Hoad 1954.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Lew Hoad 1953.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lew Hoad 1953.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Rosewall and Hoad Davis Cup 1952.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Rosewall and Hoad Davis Cup 1952.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Sedgman_Serving.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Young_Bobby_Riggs.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ellsworth_Vines_Time_Cover.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ellsworth_Vines_Time_Cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Abu badali (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Julia Child Time Cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Julia Child Time Cover.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. BetacommandBot 11:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Napoleon Disentimed British.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Napoleon Disentimed British.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ellery Queen

Thanks for your edit to "The Lamp of God". I agree that "locked room mystery" is not the best way to characterize the "nationality" mysteries, although The Chinese Orange Mystery would definitely qualify as one. I also can't seriously suggest "impossible crimes," which is something of a synonym, although The American Gun Mystery seems to qualify there. Would you agree with "puzzle mysteries" as a characterization? Accounting4Taste 21:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Orange is 100% locked room -- without spoiing this for anyone who happens to read it here, the corpse (and its attendant Impi spears) is crucial to the method by which the door is locked, as I think you will now recall. I think a key factor for many of the nationality mysteries is a relative sense of impossibility that is hard to describe. French Powder is a kind of locked room in that the store is locked and guarded. American Gun is "impossible crime" because of the disappearance of the gun, and similarly Roman Hat depends on the disappearance of the hat, Spanish Cape depends on the disappearance of the victim's clothes. Dutch Shoe, Greek Coffin, Siamese Twin and Egyptian Cross are not "impossible" in any sense, though -- merely very difficult puzzles. Siamese Twin is only locked room in the sense that no one can get off the mountain.
I like your suggestion of "classic puzzles", but I want also to suggest the impossibility factor.
The reason I'm bothering you about getting this right is that (a) you have been a major contributor to the EQ article, and obviously have expertise and (b) the same description needs to recur in the works subsequent to the nationalities series in the same section, so I'd like to get this precisely right by collaborating with someone who knows what's what. Thanks for giving this topic your consideration. Accounting4Taste 22:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow. You've gone more deeply into this than I have, and I'm not famliiar with the work you're quoting. But the one thing I did glean from what you had to say is the word "intricate", which I seized upon as useful -- perhaps "intricate formal puzzles" or "intricate classic puzzles"? I appreciate your input. Accounting4Taste 16:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright status of Dan_Dennett_in_Tahiti.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dan_Dennett_in_Tahiti.jpg

From the page: "I hereby release all rights to it. Anyone can use it for any purpose as long as they credit me as being the photographer."

The two statements are contradictory. When you release all rights to your work, you waive the right to impose conditions upon use. This means that it is not necessary to credit you as the photographer. I wholeheartedy encourage you to release your work into the public domain, but the correct license for you seems to be cc-attribution. –MT 04:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mickey_Mantle_Time_Cover.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mickey_Mantle_Time_Cover.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. howcheng {chat} 16:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Craig Rice Time Cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Craig Rice Time Cover.jpg. 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. —Angr 16:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Mickey Mantle Time Cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mickey Mantle Time Cover.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. BetacommandBot 23:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Bunny_Austin.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Von_Cramm_Time_Cover.jpg

I have tagged Image:Von_Cramm_Time_Cover.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. ~ Wikihermit 02:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment in Mayonnaise edit summary

Specifically this one - "(removed a comma, added an "and" -- how long before this page is either vandalized again or rewritten by idiots?)". Please try to respect Wikipedia Civility policy. False accusations and thinly veiled innuendos are hardly constructive. Alex Pankratov 04:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Julia Child Time Cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Julia Child Time Cover.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 15:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Crawford Hitting Volley.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Crawford Hitting Volley.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 07:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced user

Hello here, Hayford, I've been blocked for 24 hours from CZ for changing my name. Larry said OK but Matt intervened. So it goes.

Anyway, it's our Chinese night, so I must down my Super Bock & be off! Rothorpe 19:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

- OK, here goes. CZ insists on real names. Rothorpe is not one. So I foolishly signed up as Robert: the only person who calls me that is my mother. (And an old friend from school days who is a genius unpublished poet, but that's for another time.) My friend Ag (Anthony Gwynne Jones) said he had the same problem with 'Anthony' when I mentioned that Yahoo insisted on saying 'Hello Robert'. (And if your email was to Hotmail, thanks: it just stopped for no reason a couple of weeks ago: now I'm rothorpe 39 at yahoo dot com.) Last night it occurred to me that I could use 'move' to become Ro. I did, no problem. But then:

Hi Robert, as a user page, this won't work. "Ro Thorpe" isn't actually recognized in the system as a user page. So if someone wants to e-mail you via the system, they'd have to know to click on the tiny User:Robert Thorpe link at the top of the page. We could create a new User:Ro Thorpe account for you, and block User:Robert Thorpe... --Larry Sanger 10:26, 29 October 2007 (CDT)

I replied: I'd be grateful if it could be changed as far as possible. I was misled into unnecessary formality in my application. Only my mother calls me Robert.

Since when, if I try typing on CZ:

<Your user name or IP address has been blocked.

The block was made by D. Matt Innis. The reason given is moved to new user name Ro Thorpe.

Start of block: 18:05, 29 October 2007 Expiry of block: infinite Intended blockee: Robert Thorpe You can contact D. Matt Innis or another administrator to discuss the block. You cannot use the 'email this user' feature unless a valid email address is specified in your account preferences and you have not been blocked from using it. Your current IP address is 85.240.98.117, and the block ID is #1193. Please include either or both of these in any queries.

You can view and copy the source of this page:>

Of course 'any queries' are blocked & the same message appears.

But the prawn curry & chicken chow mien were excellent. The boss gave us yet another free lighter with our change; Eva already has a drawerful. Had a look for the comet in Perseus on the way home (thanks to WP for the news): 2nd magnitude and likely to become the size of the moon, it seems to be one of the Deltas - but which? Rothorpe 22:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Starious vuff

OK, thanks for Heinlein perspective.

As expected, Eva is Amazon-averse. Get your mother to send you lots of his books, she says. My mother is a very spry 86-year-old. Had to give up tennis a while back, but still manages a few holes of golf. (I have inherited my father's arthritis & need a stick to go round the garden. So it goes.)

I see, intermittent TV. I just watch the news. No sport (except for a bit of snooker). Of course American sport is all pauses for advertising. That's why 'soccer' never really caught on (as exemplified in a certain Simpsons episode).

Ceres is one of those words that no-one says, might as well be Kelloggs. It's called idiolect, one's own personal pron, which comes from the written word. So for me Andorra is Dorothy, not Pandora. Rothorpe 22:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That almond pressed duck made me feel hungry even though I’d come back from the Chinese not long before.
Still exiled from CZ. I’ve written a note to the cops.
I never got your email, but that’s probably because they sent it via Hotmail. Yahoo, which seems to be pitched at ‘cool’ nine-year-olds, is working, however: rothorpe39@yahoo.com - Rothorpe 13:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XVIII - November 2007

The November 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 15:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Alias the Saint.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Alias the Saint.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) 06:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Don Budge Time Cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Don Budge Time Cover.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) 06:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Falkenburg Wimbledon 1948.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Falkenburg Wimbledon 1948.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) 06:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Follow the Saint.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Follow the Saint.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) 06:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Art Larsen.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Art Larsen.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) 07:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Napoleon Disentimed Russian.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Napoleon Disentimed Russian.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) 14:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Jaroslav Drobny 2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jaroslav Drobny 2.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) 14:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Jaroslav Drobny Wimbledon 1946.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jaroslav Drobny Wimbledon 1946.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) 14:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Jaroslav Drobny.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jaroslav Drobny.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) 14:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Interlop11.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Interlop11.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) 18:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lott and Barnes 1931.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lott and Barnes 1931.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) 18:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:McGregor and Rosewall 1952.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:McGregor and Rosewall 1952.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) 18:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:My Real Name Is Lisa 25 Percent.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:My Real Name Is Lisa 25 Percent.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) 20:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:George Lott 1929.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:George Lott 1929.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) 22:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Trader_Vic_Back_Cover.jpg

I have tagged Image:Trader_Vic_Back_Cover.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/Non-free. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Trader_Vic_Front_Cover.jpg

I have tagged Image:Trader_Vic_Front_Cover.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/Non-free. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Analog Cover HP.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Analog Cover HP.jpg. 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. Cirt (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Intimidators.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The Intimidators.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) 09:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Intriguers.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The Intriguers.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) 09:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Saint New York Doubleday.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Saint New York Doubleday.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) 14:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Saint Novel.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Saint Novel.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) 14:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Saint On Guard.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Saint On Guard.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) 14:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Saint Steps In.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Saint Steps In.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) 15:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Saint's Getaway.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Saint's Getaway.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) 15:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Van Ryn and Allison 1932.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Van Ryn and Allison 1932.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) 15:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Thanks for uploading Image:SaintLastHero.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) 16:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Riggs Newsweek Cover 1939.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Riggs Newsweek Cover 1939.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) 04:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Demolishers.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The Demolishers.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) 06:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Detonators.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The Detonators.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) 06:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Annihilators.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The Annihilators.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) 06:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Damagers.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The Damagers.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) 06:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Astounding November 1949.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Astounding November 1949.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. Project FMF (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Dick Savitt Time Cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Dick Savitt Time Cover.jpg. 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. Corvus cornixtalk 01:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Lawry's_Inside_Menu.jpg

I have tagged Image:Lawry's_Inside_Menu.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. 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. Rettetast (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dick Savitt Time Cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dick Savitt Time Cover.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) 01:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Terminators.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The Terminators.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) 02:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Terrorizers2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The Terrorizers2.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) 02:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Threateners.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The Threateners.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) 02:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Wrecking Crew 1st Edition.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The Wrecking Crew 1st Edition.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) 02:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Removers.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The Removers.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) 02:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Retaliators.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The Retaliators.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) 02:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Time Hemingway Cover by Waldo Peirce.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Time Hemingway Cover by Waldo Peirce.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) 02:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Von Cramm Bowing to Hitler.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Von Cramm Bowing to Hitler.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) 03:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Call for the Saint.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Call for the Saint.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) 04:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Al Capp Time Cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Al Capp Time Cover.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) 04:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bobby Riggs Time Cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bobby Riggs Time Cover.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) 04:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:3 Musketeers cropped.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:3 Musketeers cropped.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) 18:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Fred Perry 1933.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fred Perry 1933.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) 20:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Fred Perry Forehand.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fred Perry Forehand.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) 20:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Fred Perry Time Cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fred Perry Time Cover.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) 20:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dinosaur Park 13th Majestral.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dinosaur Park 13th Majestral.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) 20:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dinosaur Park Italian.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dinosaur Park Italian.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) 20:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Frank Parker.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Frank Parker.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) 21:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Frank Shields.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Frank Shields.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) 21:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Davis Cup 1920 cropped.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Davis Cup 1920 cropped.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) 21:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Jack Kramer Time Cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jack Kramer Time Cover.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) 22:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hoad and Gonzales.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hoad and Gonzales.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) 22:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hoad and Rosewall with Davis Cup 1953.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hoad and Rosewall with Davis Cup 1953.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) 22:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lacoste in Car.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lacoste in Car.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) 23:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lacoste in USA 1926.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lacoste in USA 1926.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) 23:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for your images

Hi. I've been fixing some of your image uploads so that they are not deleted. I just need the copyright holders and sources of photographs like Image:Lacoste in USA 1926.jpg and Image:Lacoste in Car.jpg to fix them. Are they from your own collection, or did you get them from a website? I see from your contribution history that you do not edit Wikipedia frequently anymore, so it's fine if you don't reply. Regards, Bláthnaid 13:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Novels - 1st Coordinators Election

An election has been proposed and has been set up for this project. Description of the roles etc., can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators. If you wish to stand, enter your candidacy before the end of March and ask your questions of anyone already standing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/May 2008. Voting will start on the 1st April and close at the end of April. The intention is for the appointments to last from May - November 2008. For other details check out the pages or ask. KevinalewisBot (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Analog Sub in Martian Orbit.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Analog Sub in Martian Orbit.jpg. 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 escription 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. --11:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)