User talk:Mark83

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
  1. April 2004 - July 2005
  2. July 2005 - January 2006
  3. February 2006 - June 2006
  4. June 2006 - September 2006
  5. October 2006 - December 2006
  6. January 2007 - April 2007
  7. May 2007 - September 2007


Contents

[edit] BAE FAC, OK?

Sorry I haven't been contributing much recently.

I think you've covered all my earlier points, but I'd like to go through the rest of the article if that would be helpful.

Regarding Blue Vixen - sounds like as good an example as any. I tend to be more interested in the big lumps of metal than the twiddly electronic stuff, I just thought the article ought to give an example from that side of the house as well. Cheers. 4u1e 13:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading Image:McLaren Group.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Defunct Company

Would you take a look at this template for me? I am trying to include an optional caption for under the image, but I can't get it right. Thanks. Epson291 06:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, figured it out. Epson291 07:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:F1 team budget split.png

Hi, Mark! I'd be very grateful if you could translate this image into Galician for our F1 article and upload it to Commons when you have some free time and if you feel like, of course. Please, contact me at my Galician Wikipedia talk page.

The translation would be:

Estimated F1 team budget split -> Presuposto estimado dunha escudería de F1
Engine -> Motor
R&D -> I+D
Manufacturing -> Fabricación
Capital Expenses -> Gastos de capital
Race team -> Equipo de carreiras
Drivers -> Pilotos
Test Team -> Equipo de probas
Hydraulics -> Hidráulica
Rent, bills, etc -> Alugueres, facturas, etc
Sponsor chasing -> Procura de patrocinadores

Source: Adaptated from F1 Racing (March 2007) -> Fonte: Adaptado de F1 Racing (Marzo de 2007)
Based on a top team's budget -> Baseado nos orzamentos dunha escudería punteira.

I really hope you can do it, it would be a great boost for our article. Greetings! --Fryant 00:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much, Mark. The graph it's perfect, no changes are needed. See you, and thanks again.--Fryant 00:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BAE Systems

Cool - well done! Glad I was of some help. 4u1e 08:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2007 Malaysian Grand Prix

I've renominated this for FA status. Any chance you could comment on the article at the above link? Much appreciated if you could comment! :) Davnel03 14:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Tony put this comment down:

Here are random samples of why the whole article needs careful copy-editing. Don't just correct these; find a new person to look at it.

So, if I ask nicely, would you mind having a look at the article, because is seems like he doesn't want me to look at it. Davnel03 17:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't matter, I'll get on to your and Tony's opposition reasons now. Davnel03 17:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Made changes based on your comments. Please comment on them, and register your support (or oppose!). Davnel03 18:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Not one for wanting to make bad comments on your change, but I have a feeling your last change (moving the references) could backfire on me. Quote from peer review the article went through (diff):
The text now is much less broken up and reads better as a result while still having all facts backed up by a source. I've also noticed a spelling mistake, inital, in the original. Go through and try and consolidate the citations and move them so while still in an appropriate place, they break up the text as little as possible. AlexJ 13:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The change you have made is breaking up the text more. Not saying it's bad, but someone may say the exact difference later. Davnel03 19:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if the comment towards Tony seems bad tempered, it's not intended to be bad tempered. Thanks for the comments you have made so far, much appreciative. Thanks, Davnel03 10:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McLaren MP4-23

This had recently been discussed on WT:F1 regarding someone creating the BMW Sauber F1.08 article in a nearly identical fashion. It was argued that even though we may know the title and drivers for these cars, other things such as suspension setup and yes, even what oil is used, would be assumptions and "Crystal Balling". Hence BMW Sauber F1.08 was redirected to BMW Sauber, so that page can be recreated whenever the car is unveiled and we can verify the statistics. When I initially moved the page, I assumed McLaren MP4-23 was created by the same person who had created BMW Sauber F1.08, however I realized afterwards that it was another user. The359 23:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair points. However while I grant you the oil is a prediction [a safe one, though], all the other things are fact. McLaren can't use anything but Bridgestones next year, the Mercedes engines are homolgated and Tim Goss is confirmed as chief designer on the McLaren website. To summarise my point - there are things that are fact, but your edit summary didn't recognise that or explain your rationale fully for redirecting the page. But anyway, the facts are so bare as to be not very useful, waiting won't hurt! Thanks for taking the time to respond. Mark83 00:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that was actually the largest reasoning behind the decision. Those few facts that were indeed able to be confirmed were not really enough to warrent an article at this point. Instead of merely deleting, the articles are redirected so that someone can resurrect the older edit later on. If I had realized it was a different user creating MP4-23 I would have explained it better instead of assuming it was the same user who already knew the situation. The359 00:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nancy Reagan FAC

Hey there Mark. You helped out a lot with the Ronald Reagan article during it's FAC. I don't know if you have an interest in First Lady Nancy Reagan, but I've nominated her for FAC here, and was wondering if you could take a look. Thanks and good luck, Happyme22 02:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading Image:TAG logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Formula One

Added a load of CN tags. Hope this helps! Davnel03 21:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sweeping curves

Yep, a picture tells a thousand words and all that. If you can make the caption more appropriate to the article and not just explain what sweeping curves are, please do! AlexJ 23:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:FOM Limited.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:FOM Limited.PNG. 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 15:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pauline Fowler

Hiya, just curious, do you feel that your concerns have been adequately addressed at the Pauline Fowler FA nom? Or do you feel that there are still outstanding issues? Would you be willing to post a "Support" at the nom? I'm concerned that things seem to have kind of stalled there, and I'm trying to figure out what I can do, in order to get things moving. Thanks, --Elonka 01:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAC The World Is Not Enough (song)

All your comments are answered. So do say something in support. Vikrant Phadkay (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BAE

Mark83 said: Re. the apology - don't worry about it. Thanks for adding the info about the CAAT/Corner House judicial review, I've been meaning to do that. Thanks also for adding the Mark Thomas article - interesting reading.

Yeah. I was conned by MH, so feel much the same as Mark Thomas. Vernon White . . . Talk 10:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Dick_Olver.JPG

Replaceable fair use

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Holidays

You got a Christmas card! → → →

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ferrlogo 1987.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ferrlogo 1987.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) 19:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


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

Thanks for uploading Image:Corax UAV.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) 06:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BAES Astute.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:BAES Astute.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) 06:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mike Turner.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Mike Turner.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) 16:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Northrop Grumman ES.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Northrop Grumman ES.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Thanks for uploading Image:International Power.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Thanks for uploading Image:ICI.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:News of the World.png

Thanks for uploading Image:News of the World.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Blair

Good call on the 2012 bit, I didn't even consider that that wasn't history lol ;)

[edit] Re:The Stig

I tend to revert all mentions of said HSE report as, whilst it can be used to imply that Collins is the Stig. The line itself is very ambiguous (it doesn't expressly say he is the Stig just that he was an advisor) and to interpret it as such borders on Original Research and as such should technically be deleted. There is a discussion about it here [1] where reasons for it not being included are stated. Hope that makes things more clear but feel free to ask more if you so wish. Happy editing Agent452 (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Team McLaren Mercedes logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Team McLaren Mercedes logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Thanks for uploading Image:Renault logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Thanks for uploading Image:ReckittBenckiser.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sainsbury's Bank.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Sainsbury's Bank.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Thanks for uploading Image:Rafale logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Smiths group.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Smiths group.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cut and paste moves

Hi, I saw your comment on Blow of Light's talk page regarding cut and paste moves. Could you take a look at Malagueña and Malagueña (song)? There is definitely a cut-and-paste from November, but I don't know how to fix it. Thanks in advance, Iamunknown 22:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Holston Army Ammunition Plant

I just created this article; I'd appreciate any contributions or corrections to it, or discussion on its talk page. For example, it's not clear to me whether it is synonymous with the Holston Ordnance Works, which I've currently made a redirect to the article. Thanks. Wdfarmer (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


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

Thanks for uploading Image:Viridian Group.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Max Mosley

Hi, hope all is good in your corner of the wikiverse. Any chance you could cast an eye over Max Mosley? In particular the latter parts (FIA president on), which I'm not especially happy with at the moment. It's currently GA, but there's a peer review running at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Max Mosley, if you'd care to comment. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I noticed you your helpful comments re Max Mosley on the featured article candidate project page, thank you for being so thorough. Some of the things that you have pointed out have stayed in the article for historical reasons due to an edit war that ended about six months ago and in all likelyhood could quite easily be droppped now. Will get onto it. Tommy turrell (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Mark - thanks for the comments and other work. All good stuff. Was it you that added the refs from Rawnsley's book? If so, could you add the page numbers as well? Ta very much. 4u1e (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Cheers, much appreciated. 4u1e (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I wondered about that! Good find. 4u1e (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading Image:CanalPlus.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hanson plc.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Hanson plc.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


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

Thanks for uploading Image:Kaiser Permanente.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Mark, thank you for explaining yourself so clearly. I misunderstood your comment. Sorry. Zach4636 (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] United States presidential election, 2008

Hello Mark83. Would you take your 'remove images' request to the that article's discussion page. Also, when you prematurely removed the Dems & Reps images? you left the 'other party' images. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally am not concerned if you remove the images. I just prefer that, if you do remove them? remove them all. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Philip Hampton and Justin King.JPG

Thank you for uploading Image:Philip Hampton and Justin King.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. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. 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.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Edit summaries

I'm sorry, I didn't realise the spoiler potential of those edit summaries! Thanks for bringing this to my attention - I'll be more careful in future.-- Diniz (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BAE Systems

Thanks for the note on my Userpage. Do you think Vertical takeoff doesn't merit a mention in the BAE Systems article? I don't have the book in front of me but recollect it as making important statements about the change process in customer relations, introduced by Dick Evans. Vernon White . . . Talk 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blindly Reverting

Thank you very much for your concern I have addressed it and will revert the edit back. But watch what you do in the future. Hot200245 (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for recognising your mistake and getting back to me with the offer of reverting. I have now done so. However I have to object to your comment "But watch what you do in the future" in the strongest possible terms. You made a mistake (twice carelessly reverting) which I called you on. I fail to see where I have failed to 'watch what I do'. I would have thought an apology would be more appropriate than a rebuke. But whatever, let's move on. Best regards, Mark83 (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Max Mosley

I think that works. Responded at Talk:Max Mosley. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] George Best Belfast City Airport

Back in August 2006 you added a comment on this page that the airport was considering providing access via Holywood Exchange. Its a good idea, but what was this statement based on? I keep a close eye on road developments but this is the only place I've been that idea mooted. Since there have been no developments in the year and a half since the comment was added, perhaps it should be removed? --Tireoghain2 (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm happy to leave it for now until you've looked to see if you have the reference. It would be good if it was true, as closing the existing entrance is the only real obstacle to extending the M3 motorway as far as Knocknagoney when the current Sydenham Bypass is widened in a few years! --Tireoghain2 (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Saab naming/spelling

Mark, since you've commented on this issue in the past, I wanted to inform you that I have "been bold" and made some changes in an attempt to make the formatting consistent, both across the Saab aircraft articles, and with Saab's website. My rationale is explained at Talk:Saab#Comments on recent name reformatting. If you decide to revert my changes, or make minor ones, I won't revert back, but will discuss if I don't agree. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the "AB" issue was one I was trying to deal with too. I looked at the page, and saw that "SAAB" in the Lead was formatted as "SA AB", which is utterly unsupportable! Anyway, I expect to be reverted by the person doing the main POV pushing on this when he discovers the changes, so if you can back me up to whatever length you feel that you can, I'd appreciate it. - BillCJ (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1995 Japanese Grand Prix

Hi Mark83. As a motor racing fan who edits in the motor racing field of articles, I was wondering whether you could review the 1995 Japanese Grand Prix article, as it is currently up for Peer review. The Peer review is located here. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:617sqn-600.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:617sqn-600.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.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Formula One driver trophy.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Formula One driver trophy.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) 12:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sanders Associates

I'm not sure it working, turning Sanders Associates into a redirect to Lockheed-Sanders - because the company is now part of BAE Systems. If it's a redirect presumably it should go to the current name, but that would make incorporating the Lockheed history complicated.

Why not leave Sanders as a separate article for those who care about Sanders as a historical entity (after all, who else is going to click on a Sanders Associates link?) - but make sure we have a good introduction about its post-Sanders, with links to articles on the Lockheed and then the BAE firms, so people interested in its current status could quickly follow it? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm right?!?!? I don't think that's ever happened in a wikipedia discussion before ... - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] similar aircraft (Eurofighter)

May be you should and i apologise for not reading your link to the talk page as I am new to editing. I suppose besides Rafale other aircraft like mig-29k/OVT/M are certainly comparable to typhoon.The consensus on the talk page was arrived in late 2007 which is a bit outdated now. The old Gripen is certainly not comparable but the new gripen demontrator certainly is. Its almost a new aircraft because of certain changes in airframe and avionics and those changes must be considered. Click Here This web site provides a good review of the new Gripen demontrator. please check it out. regards Daredevil555 (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont think opening up the discussion would serve any useful purpose as you suggest, but there is nothing stopping one of the serial adders of comparable aircraft to open up the discussion if they want to. MilborneOne (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Morrisons, ASDA, Sainsbury's

Instead of just blanket reverting my contributions it may have been pertinent to better check the source. It features a map which shows which postcode areas are dominated by each supermarket. If you took the time (as I did) to compare it to a postcode map you will find that all the information I added was entirely correct and verifiable. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for replying. I accept your opinion but please see here for my reasoning why it should stay. Thanks, Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Kulwicki review

I don't think we've ever met before, but you were recommended by a friend. I spent months working on the article for the deceased NASCAR champion Kulwicki. It easily passed GA, but it recently failed FA. I learned a lot about FA articles during the FAC, and I spent very much time redoing things in the article from the recommendations during the FAC. Would you review the article at FA level and comment on its talk page? There are no NASCAR editors with FA experience (there are no NASCAR-related FA), and 4u1e (talk · contribs) mentored me on the GA process (with the Mario Andretti article). 4u1e is mainly off-wiki right now. There's no rush. I appreciate your comments. Royalbroil 12:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] X Factor infobox

Hi there,

Do you know how we can change the orange infobox that appears on X Factor series articles so that Osbourne can be listed as a 'Former judge'? Wiki edit Jonny (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you just change it? :) Wiki edit Jonny (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)