User talk:Lumos3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for visiting my talk page. If you post here, I will reply here so the conversations don't get dis-jointed. If I have posted to your talk page, feel free to post your replies there...I'll watch.
Please add your message at the bottom, or click here to start a new section. Thanks



Leave a new message.
Archive
Archives



Contents

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:EMDR cover image.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] more problems in psychohistory

Hi Lumos,

We are having trouble again in the psychohistory page (this time with a pov pusher). I have tried to communicate to him in talk page and in his user page. Can you recommend me an admin whom I may ask assistance?

—Cesar Tort 23:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Cesar, Sorry I dont know any admins personally. I agree there is POV pushing going on . I will keep a closer watch on the article. Suggest the article goes on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment RFC page to bring in more comments. Best wishes Lumos3 (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The trouble here is that that article has already been in RFC just before the present crisis. I'd rather wait and see if this user finally wants to argue in talk page. Otherwise I'll ask for a WP:3O. —Cesar Tort 17:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedians in the Brights movement

I have speedy deleted a category you created, Category:Wikipedians in the Brights movement, as a substantially similar recreation of previously deleted material. Please see this UCFD discussion, resulting in delete. Thanks for understanding! VegaDark (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Lord Jim cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Lord Jim 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. BJBot (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scott de Martinville

Hi there, Lumos3! I tried to make the thing about the new recording say 'almost three decades' in that paragraph about the Edison Co. Handel chorus recording, but someone with just a red IP reverted me. I am allergic to revert wars so I left it but put the ext link to the 1888 page into the text. As you are doing things with this page maybe you'd like to make it say 'three' decades. Possibly the person won't revert BOTH of us! Did you know this story made Charlotte Green, the BBC Radio 4 newsreader, get an attack of the giggles this morning live on air? Something to do with someone whispering it sounded like a bee in a bottle. I think it sounds fabulous, and I hope they go on and find Lincoln - and others. I think it's a big shame the Phonograph article is so Edison-centred it hasn't got room for some stuff on the Preece, Henry Edmunds and Augustus Stroh work of 1878. I guess the propaganda unit won't let this one go!!!! Best wishes.Eebahgum (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe most of your edit remains in place. 'almost three decades' could be seen as putting a spin on it , just say what it was ie 28 years. I have been playing the Au Clair de la Lune recording in a loop and thinks its very realistic and a bit spooky. Lumos3 (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of New Age communities

I have nominated New Age communities, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Age communities. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Wizardman 15:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Vitamin C

Hey there. I'm aware that you contribute to this article in a large way and your edits are appreciate your contributions. You are constantly altering the article to favour taking large doses of vitamin C. This is very dangerous and is considered fringe science and is quite frankly outdated. For instance your quote Pauling's 1986 book How to Live Longer and Feel Better was a bestseller and advocated taking more than 10,000 milligrams per day orally is irresponsible as taking those doses invariably causes toxic effects. Notably it causes kidney stones, reduces copper levels causes diarrhoea. You constant;y are advocating outdated fringe science on the topic. All the mainstream sources state the vitamin C should be taken within it's stated dose and if should exceed 500mg at the very most. Please see the following sites: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] This sort of information pushing is dangerous and irresponsible as individuals may be inclinded to take this as healthcare advice. Please try to be a bit more balancd when editing vitamin c —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medos2 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

All of the above are to jounalist's pages with no mention of a science basis for the stated dangers of overdose. Can you provide serious peer reviewed science for your claims of the effects of overdose? If you are concerned about toxic effects then I suggest you add fully referenced material to the "Adverse effects" section in the article.
Paulings book was a best seller and was historically significant in the public interest in taking high levels of Vitamin C. It needs to be mentioned for historic reasons even if you disagree with what he said.

Lumos3 (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


Ok, as requested peer-reviewed scientific journals on the topic of vitamin C toxicity: [7], [8],

[9], [10].

Paulings book is a best seller but it is over 20 years old. I think that needs to be kept in focus. Medos (talk • contribs) 20:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree there is evidence that ascorbic acid increases oxalate formation but there is no evidence that it increases kidney stone formation. Correspondence does not equal causality. AA may have other effects in the body which may prevent stone formation. The Food and Nutrition Board panel on dietary antioxidants and related compounds suggested in 2000 that in vivo data do not clearly show a relationship between excess vitamin C intake and kidney stone formation See here page3 and ref 20. The article already notes this in the "Adverse effects" section. I have never seen a reputable study on the copper claim. The diarrhoea effect is well documented in the article , is reversible and harmless. Pauling's book was a popularisation of his ideas on AA from the early 1970s. His hypotheses have never been put to the test at his dose levels since then and there has been no study which has falsified them, so their age is not relevant. Mention of the book and Paulings deliberate role in promoting high doses is essential to a balanced historical view. Lumos3 (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The flip-side of your point if there is no study on Paulings' work then equally there is no study which validates them, but I understand that you are showing that it is not mainstream so I do understand. I think you've defended your point admirably. Thanks for addressing my concerns. Medos (talk • contribs) 09:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Perhaps one day we will see this headline:- Research Study Launched To Make Vitamin C A Drug (Its a spoof). Lumos3 (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mr_Natural.jpg

I have tagged Image:Mr_Natural.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stirling engine Intro

Hi Lumos,

I note you have added the phrase "which is unique to the Stirling engine" referring to the regenerator. This is not the case, there are many regenerative processes - in the field of heat engines it was famously applied to the open cycle Ericsson engines and continues to be used on Brayton cycle machines such as the gas turbine, usually in the form of the Ritz rotary regenerator. Ivo Kolin's 'The Evolution of the Heat Engine' is a very good primer on the various cycles.

I do hope this business of a concise, accurate and digestable intro is sorted soon without too many clashes. The Stirling engine is something of an enthusiasm of mine and at the moment I feel the whole article is doing it a great disservice by being cumbersome and convoluted. To get the intro right would be a good starting point - though actually it wasn't too bad a few edits ago, but if I start reverting again Mikiemike will have me strung up!

81.134.14.178 (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies , I bow to your greater knowkedge. I was trying to convey that the Regenerator is an essential feature of a Stirling engine, although I now read that some engines may lack it and still be called SEs so Im now bemused. Lumos3 (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt removal of the offending statement - I'm fed up with being the bad guy!

Indeed, all Stirling engines should have some form of regeneration, but not all regenerative engines are Stirlings. As all Stirling engines are hot air engines, within the extended definition encompassing other gaseous working fluids, but not all hot air engines are Stirlings - ooh err, a bit controversial!

The reason for your bemusement is, I think, that in some engines cyclic heat exchange with the walls of the gas passages between the hot and cold heat exchangers provides a significant regenerative effect, classing them as Stirling engines even in the absence of an identifiable regenerator. This is particularly true of small engines where the ratio of surface are to swept volume is favorable. Remember that for geometrically similar designs, surface area is, of course, proportional to the square of linear dimensions while volume is proportional to the cube - one of the reasons why the performance of a SE does not scale in the same way as an internal combustion engine. As the size of an SE increases steps must be taken to increase the surface areas through which heat is exchanged eg adding multi-tubular hot and cold ends and mesh regenerator.

Found tilde on eee pc now:-

79.78.12.95 (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Thanks for your explanations of the Stirling engine regenerator. It seems you havent been given a formal welcome so here it is. Lumos3 (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Lumos3 (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC) |}

Thank you for the welcome Lumos.
You will note that I have decided to register as it seemed edits from unregistered users are treated with suspicion in some quarters. Unfortunately, even after rather reluctantly taking that step and posting what I imagined to be a constructive and even conciliatory (indicating that I might be prepared to recant on the 'hot air engine' question) piece on the Strling engine discussion page, I was treated to another agressive, bullying response to which I'm afraid I responded in kind. So, I have not found wikipedia the friendy community of people simply wishing to share their knowledge with others it is apparently supposed to be and feel shut out of the article I am probably most able to contribute productively to.
Yours dissapointed Pv=mrt (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading Image:Riceyman Steps.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. NotifyBot (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Tommy Trinder Story Cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Tommy Trinder Story 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. Polly (Parrot) 23:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Tommy Trinder Story Cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tommy Trinder Story 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. BJBot (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The_Tube_Neon_Sign.jpg

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Project FMF (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:TCS web page.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:210px-Otto Braun4.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:210px-Otto Braun4.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, 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, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, 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 19:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Damiens.rf 19:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:TCS web page.JPG)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:TCS web page.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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? BJTalk 08:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Age

Hi Lumos

I'm writing to request your comments in this discussion on the talk page for New Age. It's a long discussion, mostly I thought you might be interested regarding the later portions of the thread. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Albert Kahn.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:Albert Kahn.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. 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.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sirling engine 'waste heat'

Hi Lumos,

Yes,the Stirling engine does offer possibilities for utilising waste heat from other processes, but my intention in this instance was to highlight the ease with which heat from the 'cold end' of a SE can be recovered for, say, domestic water heating. In contrast to an internal combustion engine where the waste heat is split between the cooling system and exhaust gasses - recovery from the latter beng particularly challenging. This is one of the characteristics that makes the SE uniquely suited to domestic CHP. Perhaps my wording could have been better and I invite you to improve upon it whilst retaining the original meaning. Pv=mrt (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Utilisation of waste heat - I am not convinced this is real beyond marketeering. The citation does not support it. Waste heat can be utilised from any heat engine and there is nothing about a Stirling engine that seems special in this. Exhaust gases from a stirling engine combustion chamber would be as difficult to use as exhaust gases from an Internal combustion engine. Please find a citation. Lumos3 (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

A Stirling engine already has a heat exchanger to remove 'waste' heat from the working fluid at the compression end, whereas practically any other prime mover would require additional exchanger(s) in CHP applications. Stack losses from the combustion system can be reduced to a low level using a recuperative combustion air pre-heater - this is extensively explored in "The Air Engine" Point taken though and I shall seek a suitable ref. Pv=mrt (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I haven't got to the stage of trawling through back copies of 'Stirling News' yet, but so far no suitable ref has presented itself from my library (must have read it somewhere!. A quick google search produced this http://www.ingenia.org.uk/ingenia/articles.aspx?Index=108 which has a slightly oblique ref (see third para of "operation of the Stirling engine") - would that satisfy you? Pv=mrt (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


This article does not make it clear if its talking about the heat from the cold side of the engine or the waste heat from the combustion chamber. I suspect its the combustion chamber. Its clear the SE is versatile and can utislise heat in a ways that other engines cannot but the statment that its own waste heat can be particularly easily used is not supported in theory or practise. In a combined Heat and power scheme the engine is in effect running on the waste heat of the heating boiler and using it to make electricity. Its the boiler heat that is more efficiently used. Lumos3 (talk) 07:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


Seems pretty clear to me. I quote:- "Again, in order for the engine to operate, waste heat must continuously be removed from the cool end of the engine. With Domestic CHP the heat is taken away by the water in the central heating system." The crucial (though unwritten) point being that the required heat exchanger is already provided as an integral part of the SE - not an additional unit as required with, eg, ICE based systems where around 1/2 of the rejected cycle heat must be recovered from the exhaust stream. 'Stack loss' from the SE's combustion system is another issue and, as previously indicated, is best attacked using fairly conventional recuperative techniques. Perhaps I am in danger of making a virtue out of a neccesity but comparing the packaging of, say, the ICE based Honda MCHP and SE based Microgen, it is pretty clear which is most likely to find a place in the average kitchen.

My main intention in introducing the paragraph under discussion was to provide some sort of 'why should I be interested?' content to the introduction as suggested (by yourself?) in the discussion pages a while ago and on current evidence it appears that if the SE is to achieve any significant market penetration as a prime mover (something it has signally failed to do since the late 19th century), it is likely to be as the core component of domestic scale CHP systems Pv=mrt (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


I believe the current phrasing of the introduction accomplishes this as it informs the reader of the versatility of the SE and its application in CHP. I dont think your quote is clear and universally stated enough for the claim to be made in the introduction where its a little confusing unless the reader knows some background. I have no problem if you want to add it in the section on CHP in the article. Lumos3 (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you understand what needs to be conveyed, so if you are happy that the current wording achieves this then we'll leave it at that. Pv=mrt (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Press coverage

As Wikia != wikipedia, I've removed the wikia story from press coverage. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I know Wikia is not Wikipedia but this and every other press article will explain Wikia in terms of Wikipedia so there is a going to be a lot of indirect press coverage of Wikipedia from the launch. I think we need to include at least one high profile article for the record. This is also an interview with Wales not just a news report, plus its in Forbes not just a backwater. I think it should stay.Lumos3 (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Nope. It's an article about Wikia. An interview about Wikia. Any Wikipedia mention is incidental. It just does not qualify; we do not record Wikia ... let them create their own press page. They are not us. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
OK fair enough. Lumos3 (talk) 07:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:Albert Kahn.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Albert Kahn.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. BJTalk 12:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Black Book cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Black Book 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. J Milburn (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)