User talk:Ariel.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Re: Evangeline Lilly
2 Wikipedia Account
3 Korban
4 Coccidioidomycosis and dogs
5 Blogs as sources
6 Thermoluminescence
7 Notability of AGLOCO
8 Etrog
9 Image:Etrog without Pitom.jpg and Image:Etrog with Pitom.jpg
10 Redirect of Robert Hawkins
11 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:NeedfulThingsDVDCover.JPG
12 Re: backwards dates with bot
13 Time travel is possible
14 Locked-in syndrome
15 Campaign to erase leaders on woman page
16 Fair use rationale for Image:Fringe poster firgure.jpg
17 Fair use rationale for Image:Fringe poster apple.jpg
18 Fair use rationale for Image:Fringe poster hand.jpg
19 Fair use rationale for Image:Fringe poster ink.jpg
20 Fair use rationale for Image:Fringe poster leaf.jpg
21 Unspecified source for Image:Dollhouse_Dushku.jpg
22 A quick note
23 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Fringe poster apple.jpg)
24 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Fringe poster hand.jpg)
25 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Fringe poster ink.jpg)
26 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Fringe poster leaf.jpg)

[edit] Re: Evangeline Lilly

All actors in Lost has this {{lostnav}} template in this page with the exception of this actress. I don't see this as being fair because all other performers on ABC's Lost has this Wikitemplate. I really don't have to put up with an edit war about this, but if you don't believe the reason why the LOSTNAV template has to be in this article, here are some references for example: Emilie de Ravin, Malcolm David Kelley, Daniel Dae Kim, all Lost performers have this template. It is extremely advisable that you check all Lost performer pages (like the aforementioned for examples) before you even attempt to remove the {{lostnav}} template. Hopefully I've stated a good reason why you need to put a template like I said even in an actors/actresses page. If you have a problem with that, you can either talk to me or Yamla. Thanks. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 21:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Then it should be removed from all the actors pages. 71.199.123.24 02:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

To recap: the ACTOR does not live on the lost island, only the character does. The actor does not get a lost nav on their page. Only the CHARACTER page gets it. Imagine if someone acted in 10 shows - does that mean they get a nav area for each one of the shows? No. They don't. They get links to their character page for each of the show, and on that page you put the nav. 71.199.123.24 02:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Aaaa...bring it to the attention of Yamla, since he pretty much watches over the pages. I'm not gonna do anything radical about the pages to protect my image, I'm gonna leave the "Lostnav" issue between you and Yamla. I'm not gonna interfere with this affair any further. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 02:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll leave a message for Yamla. Although he'll probably notice the message I left in the history log. Also: I have finished removing all the nav tags from the actor pages. 71.199.123.24 03:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, the reason why I want you and Yamla to discuss this (and any reasons why you MUST remove the Lostnav template from its respective pages) is because I'm really against removing templates from certain pages since that's a really radical move to make. Do whatever you think it's right, but keep in mind that there could be times when I might disagree with something because I consider it to be radical, and I just don't want to be the subject of an edit war under any circumstances. Also, I don't want the user to be in trouble for something he/she would never do. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 03:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have left a message for Yamla. You never said your opinion on the matter, just that you don't like radical changes. Basically I want to keep the distinction between the real and the fictional. 71.199.123.24 03:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding my position on the matter, I'm pretty much neutral. Hope that answers all of your questions. :( — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 04:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Account

Have you ever thought about creating a Wikipedia Account? Just curious, that's all. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 04:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have actually - but I want the username Ariel, and that's taken User:Ariel. If not that one I can't think of a username........ 71.199.123.24 05:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not taken (that's why the link is red instead of blue). Feel free to sign up with the same (especially before someone else gets to it). -- joturn e r 05:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it is taken, it's red because he hasen't created a user page. 71.199.123.24 06:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the log page for "Ariel" does not show that an account was created with that name... unlike, for example, my log page. If Wikipedia tells you that the name is taken, that is very odd. Perhaps you've seen a post by someone with a different user name who has changed his signature to "Ariel" ? --Eliyak T·C 15:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Korban

Hello, Korbanot is being used in a sense that includes the complete set of Templeofferings -- meal-offerings (Mincha), wine-offerings, the first fruits on Shavuot, the water libation on Sukkot, etc. etc. FYI, doves weren't the only kinds of bird-offerings, see Leviticus 1:14. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

But the other kinds are not 'sacrifices' in terms of the english word. Saying usually makes it seem like humans were killed too. Maybe say something like animals were sacrifcied, and the other stuff was offered. Ariel. 01:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coccidioidomycosis and dogs

The above disease is listed on the List of dog diseases, and I tried to tag all the articles listed there. In many cases, these articles hadn't been tagged at all yet, so I figured having the articles receive a quality assessment by whomever ultimately would be useful in general. For articles of perhaps "B" quality or higher, I also tried to ensure that the article itself specifically mentioned the canine aspect, however, for comparatively short articles, there wouldn't necessarily be enough information on the article to indicate which species of animals, human and non-human, were effected. I do have to acknowledge that I personally don't know based on the info available to me how common a disease it is among canines, because we don't have anything anywhere about that, so if it is a comparatively rare disorder among canines I would have no objection to the tag being removed. However, I do hope to be giving quality assessment rankings to all the articles I have tagged, if nothing else to make any subsequent rankings by other projects I bit easier and to let the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team have an indication of the current quality ranking of as many articles as possible. Unfortunately, I don't really know which other projects would consider the article within their scope, so the only one I could reasonably put down was the dogs banner, given that disease being listed on the list of dog diseases. I hope that answers your question, and, if you know more than I do about the subject (which wouldn't be hard in this case) and can say that it has only a minor connection to canines, I wouldn't have any objections to the banner's removal. Badbilltucker 14:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There is an inactive Disease project and an active Medicine project. The latter project does assessments as well. Unfortunately, I am not personally at all sure of the scope of the latter project, being involved in actually none of the scientific projects, so I can't be sure whether they would consider it within their scope or not. So far as I can tell, those are the only other ones which even might claim the article to be within their scope. I understand your reservations about tagging diseases by the species affected. Generally, however, so far as I have seen, we try to make sure that any given article on a disease or fungus or whatever includes information on all the species affected and how they are affected. As I am virtually certain there is no current project relating to veterinary medicine (not that I would mind seeing one) this may be the only way to ensure that such content is ever introduced. Badbilltucker 23:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blogs as sources

Regarding your re-addition to Coccidioidomycosis - I'm not randomly removing the link because I'm passing judgement on the blog in question, but Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources says that "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or comments on blogs, should not be used as sources." I'd like to have a conversation - let me know what you think. Thanks. -- MarcoTolo 03:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I put blog in quote in my edit summary because it's barely that, rather it's a medical analysis of the show. If you read a bunch of his reviews of the show you'll understand what I mean. A blog is someones personal thoughts - yes that's in there as a review, but also in there is scientific medical analysis of how realistic the medicine on the show is. I think it's an excellent source. Ariel. 04:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the WP:RS guideline and the WP:V policy both seem to be clear: on-line or otherwise self-published sources are acceptable as primary sources (i.e. in an article about the Polite Dissent website itself), but are not acceptable as secondary sources (as in this case). Again, I'm not trying to "pass judgement" on the site -- I suspect the author is probably right -- but as I see it, the citation guidelines say "No can do" on this kind of usage. -- MarcoTolo 05:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Barring any further comments, I'm pulling the citation per above. -- MarcoTolo 02:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't reply because I don't know what to say - I completely disagree with you on this, and reading the guidelines only makes me more sure you are wrong about this. This is a doctor reporting standard medical knowledge, it's not personal stuff, there is no agenda, it's not even remotely contraversial. I don't understand why you think there is anything wrong with linking to someone giving very simple medical information about a show - and the stuff he says is very easy to verify. Not to mention we are talking about a TV show, which doesn't really need such super verification anyway! I think you are making a mistake and blindly applying guidelines without thinking about them. Ariel. 03:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps I'm not being clear - I'll try to be a little more logical in explaining my position. First of all, I'd appreciate it if you would let me know how you think I'm misinterpreting the reference/citation sections of WP:RS and WP:V. Please note that I'm not trying to be confrontational in asking - while I think I've considered the guidelines carefully, I'm under no delusion that I'm perfect.

Again, I having nothing against the blog in question - I had never seen it before looking at your link . I also don't suspect you (or the blog) have an agenda. I do, however, think that references need a bit more "authority" behind them than "some doctor named Scott says so". And yes, the author's comments are pretty easy to investigate - what I'm saying is that Wikipedia should link to those reliable and authoritative sources directly. This gets around the problem nicely, which, after all, is why we have a guideline for this stuff in the first place. Citing reliable sources also allows for more specific, more nuanced referencing. As an example, the author's comments about coccidioidomycosis not having a neurological component are generally true: To be more correct, you would have to note that neuro symptoms in coccidioidomycosis infection is uncommon, but not unknown (here are a couple of PubMed refs I dug up in about three minutes: PubMed, PubMed), but then you might as well cite peer-reviewed journal articles themselves.

I hope I've been a little clearer - let me know, eh? -- MarcoTolo 03:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thermoluminescence

Hi, I saw you made an edit about 2 months ago on the article Thermoluminescence, and I was wondering whether you'd still like to work on that article. I really have a knack for picking the articles with the least people to working in them for editing. Anyway, somebody added what would be the best source we could get on external links, so we have some actually verifiable information. All we'd have to do is check for copyright and, if there is no copyright on it, add info from it. Thanks for any help in the near or further future. Slartibartfast1992 23:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of AGLOCO

A tag has been placed on AGLOCO, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Od Mishehu 11:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etrog

I removed the plants category because that belongs on the Citron article. Etrog (a hebrew word for the Citron) is specifically about the religious aspects of that fruit. Ariel. 19:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean {{WikiProject Plants}} banner on the talk page? From what I understand, Etrog is a specific variety of Citrus medica (though NPGS/GRIN lists the variety epithet as "ethrog"). It is thus within the scope of WP:PLANTS as it is a formal taxon. Even though the subject matter of the article doesn't really mention the taxonomy or botanical history of the variety, it either should or another article, Citrus medica var. etrog, should be created that does discuss those aspects (per the flora naming convention). If that second article is created, then the taxobox should be placed at that article and removed from the Etrog article. --Rkitko ^(talk) 20:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Etrog without Pitom.jpg and Image:Etrog with Pitom.jpg

Hi, I would like to use the images in the franch wikipedia but actualy I can't cause there is no information about the sources of the documents, if you are the owner of the photo please just add "own work" and it will be all right. Regards--Kimdime69 17:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is my own work, but I'm not sure what you want me to add to the image. The license is not enough? Ariel. 22:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No, to put the file in the french wikipedia I have to download it in commons witch have realy strict copyright policies, if you just add on the files that those photos are your own work it will be OK. Regards.--Kimdime69 22:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect of Robert Hawkins

I added a discussion on the redirect of Robert Hawkins (Killer) on this talk page. Please comment if you have an opinion. Gtstricky (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: backwards dates with bot

Answered at my talk page. Thanks. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time travel is possible

Read Einstein's theory of special relativity and time dilation. Malamockq (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read both of those, but they both cover only slowing of time. NOT travel back to a time that already passed. Obviously you can travel to the future. But travel to the past is not possible, since the past doesn't "exist" as it were. Time is simply the speed/rate at which stuff happens. It's not a place you can go to. Ariel. (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Traveling forward in time counts as time travel. As for traveling back in time... Well that we don't know about. It's not a place you can go to, but I haven't read any scientific theories that state that you can't travel back in time. There are causality issues, but I don't think there is any conclusive data on the subject. I believe Carl Sagan stated that time travel into the past, may be possible using blackholes or wormholes. Malamockq (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The blackhole wormhole idea is incorrect. Of course, I don't have a reputation compared to Carl Sagan, or other physicists (so I understand if you don't believe me), but it's still incorrect. As I mentioned in the reference desk posting, I really want to add the info to the article, but without references.... Basically time dilation only applies to mass/energy. A wormhole is not mass or energy, it's a region of folded space (if it exists). So time dilation doesn't apply to it. Aside from the (incorrect) wormhole idea, there are no methods of time travel that are consistent with physics as it's currently known. Ariel. (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have to say, I don't take your word over Carl Sagan's. Btw, a Wormhole is a passage connected by two blackholes, and the two blackholes indeed have mass. Malamockq (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

First, not all wormholes have blackholes at the end. Second, there are not two blackholes, but just one. People commonly imagine a wormhole to be a long tunnel, but that's not correct. There is no tunnel - you enter one side, and immediately exit the other. And even if there was a tunnel the two blackholes would feel a massive attraction, and would be inevitably merged together. So, there is just one blackhole, and whatever you do to one side of it, happens to the other. It's not possible to accelerate just one side, and thus have time dilation on just one side. Another problem is conservation of energy - suppose one side was moving fast when you exited - this would mean if you entered one side, not moving fast, you would exit moving fast, which isn't possible (a: when did you accelerate, and b: what about conservation of energy). All of this means that you either: can't move just one side of the wormhole without moving the other side, or, that just because the mouth of the wormhole is moving, doesn't mean that _you_ will move with it. i.e. you exit wherever the mouth happens to end up, with no velocity. But if that is the case, then time dilation also does not have an affect. Either way you look at it time travel via wormhole is not possible. Ariel. (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether there are two blackholes on either end of the wormhole wasn't really the point right? There are two "mouths" and the mouths (or at least one of them) have mass. You may be right about your other points, I'm not sure entirely. What I do know is, a lot of scientists accept the possibility that backwards time travel might be possible. Malamockq (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

My point is that if there is mass, it can't be 2 masses, but just one, so you can't do different things to the two masses. Or it's not mass, but then time dilation doesn't apply. And it's only some scientists that accept time travel, most don't. It's because quantum physics has some weird stuff in it that people talk about time travel, plus the symmetry of how backwards time flow matches certain physical processes (like matter looks like anti-matter if you reverse time). But I don't think anyone seriously thinks time travel is possible, not to mention wormholes probably don't exist either, and even blackholes have never been seen, just theorized. Ariel. (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Locked-in syndrome

Hi. I left a message on the talk page here: Talk:Locked-In_syndrome#Trivia_Section. You're right, trivia should be integrated, but you simply can't include every mention of a medical condition that occurs on TV. Imagine what the cancer article would look like. Please integrate any material that can be, but I do think most of it needs to go. Wikipedia can't be a repository of every mention of a subject in popular culture. Dgf32 (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Campaign to erase leaders on woman page

Hi. I'm writing to you since I thought that you might appreciate the formerly deleted examples of women leaders on the woman page. There has been a campaign to deem them superfluous and to blank them off the screen. Then, the parties involved declared a "consensus." (I restored the deleted material.) Thought you'd be interested, Cheers, Dogru144 (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Fringe poster firgure.jpg

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

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Fringe poster apple.jpg

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

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Fringe poster hand.jpg

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

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Fringe poster ink.jpg

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

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Fringe poster leaf.jpg

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

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Dollhouse_Dushku.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dollhouse_Dushku.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}} 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 04:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC). 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? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A quick note

Hi there,

When uploading non-free content (including copyrighted images), please be sure to add a fair-use rationale. In addition to conforming to Wikipedia's non-free content criteria, doing so will drastically cut down on the number of messages on your talk page. Thanks! --jonny-m t 13:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Fringe poster apple.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Fringe poster apple.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) 09:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Fringe poster hand.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Fringe poster hand.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).

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Fringe poster ink.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Fringe poster ink.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).

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Fringe poster leaf.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Fringe poster leaf.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).

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.