From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 General talk 1.1 January 2008 1.1.1 Welcome! 1.1.2 Vandalism on the Sleep page 1.1.3 Warnings against IP address 1.1.4 Re: Counter-vandalism work 1.1.5 Vandalism 1.2 February 2008 1.2.1 Final warning for Sandpoint article 1.2.2 Vandalism to the Mouth (human) article 1.2.3 sutcliffe 1.2.4 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mind meal DMHO's vote 1.2.5 Vandalism? (Article: List of German Uhlan Regiments) 1.2.6 re: Speedy deletion of Image:SurfTensionContactAngle.gif 1.2.7 Speedy deletion of chemical structures 1.3 March 2008 1.3.1 Deletion of article: Anadolu Jet 1.3.2 use of TW 1.3.3 thanks for the fix 1.3.4 Thanks for your support! 1.3.5 Thank-you 1.3.6 Thanks for the support 2 RfA - February 1, 2008 2.1 February 2008 2.1.1 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hennessey, Patrick 2.1.2 Withdrawal of RfA 2.1.3 Your request for adminship 3 Warnings and block notices 4 Other notifications 4.1 March 2008 4.1.1 Replaceable fair use Image:Rebecca Coad - Campaign photo 001.JPG 4.1.2 AfD nomination of Rebecca Coad 4.1.3 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Rebecca Coad - Campaign photo 001.JPG) 5 Inbox

[edit] General talk

This section contains general messages that I have received and read. Please place new messages in the "Inbox" section.

[edit] January 2008

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Hennessey, Patrick, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Elkman for this info, I am sure I will find it useful. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism on the Sleep page

About the vandalism on the Sleep page. I was also trying to adress that issue that appeared before I accessed the page (i mean trying to fix it) :) Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.105.29.54 (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for the confusion. I have checked the appropriate records and have cancelled the warning on your talk page. Thank you for helping in the fight against vandalism. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings against IP address

Hey man, I apologize for whoever is disrupting edits, my computer has been hacked and I'm going thru a process trying to change IP's and stuff so this moron can't keep coming in a ruining stuff I work on here. If you have to suspend or ban, I won't be upset, but I'm letting you know that this isn't MY fault. Write to me here if you want to talk, I'm going to be on the phone and making sure this idiot doesn't find a way to hack in here while I"m here, if he/she does, I'll revert the edits. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snuffereet (talk • contribs) 08:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are refering to the warnings to the IP address "68.108.88.24", if so then I thank you for letting me know about this. If the IP address gets blocked it will not affect you because you already have your own registered account with Wikipedia. I didn't have time to look through your edit records, however I will assume you are doing constructive work on Wikipedia, so keep it up! Thank you. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 09:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch dude! I TRY to make as much constructive edits as possible, but I'm still rather new and the guidelines confuse me so I need others to help me so I won't get into too much trouble! ha ha Take care! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snuffereet (talk • contribs) 09:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem! I haven't been around all that long myself compared to some of the members, but if you were to ask me a question I would try my best to answer it. Happy editing. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Counter-vandalism work

Started on Farosdaughter's talk page

(Copied from Farosdaughter's talk page) Thanks for dealing with that vandal on my talk page, I see he/she has been blocked now. Keep up the good work! Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, glad I could help. You're doing great CV work as well :) --Farosdaughter (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again! Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

my edits to winds of plague were truth..you want vandalism? it says that raffi was there drummer...RAFFI?! the childrens entertainer did not ever have anything to do with winds of plague —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.18.26 (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what anyone else put on the page, whether true or not, your edit which added "Band members are edgebreakers and sellouts" looks like your personal opinion and also is an insult to the band members and as such has no place on Wikipedia. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

[edit] Final warning for Sandpoint article

Re: final warning Sandpoint.....I don't see how my changes were vandalism considering I live in the town of Sandpoint and you are a guy from Vancouver deciding what is "vandalism" for a description of a place you've probably never seen. I guess the term "hippie" is derogatory now or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.252.9 (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I consider those edits vandalism because the have no reference as to the source of the information, which is required in Wikipedia, and the edit record and previous warnings for your IP address do not exactly inspire confidence. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism to the Mouth (human) article

yes i am not telling you in a threatining maner but thay can be a use of the mouth for oral sex and that is why i added that section. to me i am not vandalizing wikipadia, i just want to improve it72.218.118.6 (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I based my decision to revert your edit on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; When you wonder what to do, this policy states "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia.". I would not expect an article in any non-wiki encyclopedia about a mouth to contain information about its use for oral sex. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sutcliffe

The original source that I have been trying to add has the ***'s intact! According to WP:Profanity, you do use those. This isn't censorship.

I'm trying to just add the citation and people won't leave it alone long enough for me to do it...go read the talk page..and I the only one that follows correct procedure? Berean Hunter (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
article here [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1943730/posts] Berean Hunter (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I based my revert on WP:What Wikipedia is not; Wikipedia is not censored, however I will read WP:Profanity carefully before making anymore reverts of this type. If I was wrong here, then I apologise. Thank you. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have checked WP:Profanity, and it says the following: In original Wikipedia content, a profanity should either appear in its full form or not at all; words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters in the word with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols. However, when quoting relevant material from external sources, rendering a quote as it was originally spoken/written trumps our style guidelines. If necessary, you may indicate that the blanking was in the original quote by saying so in some way outside of the quote, for example by using "[censorship preserved]" or "[sic]". Because of this, I stand by my decision to revert the edit. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mind meal DMHO's vote

I don't think that was an oppose. It was a support with a "joke oppose rationale." It would be impossible to meet that criterion. pi⁴² would be a very high number. I'll leave another note on his talk page. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 00:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I took "oppose" to mean what it said, and assumed the very high number was put there for a laugh in and of itself. However if I was wrong, then thanks for correcting me. Hopefully it becomes more clear before the beauraucrats possibly interpret it the wrong way. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism? (Article: List of German Uhlan Regiments)

What is wrong with creating a list of German Uhlan Regiments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerau81 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing. The warning I put on your talk page was not for anything in the article itself, it was for removing the speedy deletion tag from the article page. That tag specifically says that a user is not allowed to remove a speedy deletion tag from a page that they created themself. As for why the tag was put there, the article must have enough context that the reader can understand what what they are reading means. For example the list did not say when these regiments existed or what they did. Again, I did not warn you for damaging the article, because you did not damage the article, I warned you for removing the speedy deletion tag, because that interferes with due process. Thank you.

By the way, I don't want to seem like I am chewing you out for this, I just want to make clear why I took the action I took. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 11:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I remain a little unclear on your actions. I created the list as a link to the main Uhlan page and thought that a detailed list of each German regiment would be worthwhile. As you can appreciate, it takes some time to prepare and I wanted to save my progress. I can't understand why a "speedy deletion" is needed for this list, as a little research would have revealed that there already exists a detailed page on Uhlans, and that it would seem reasonable to create and link a new page which lists all known German regiments rather overcrowd the main article. What should I do now, as I would still like to create the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerau81 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this, and I think I took the guidelines too far when I nominated the page for speedy deletion. I see you have re-created the page and that it is also alot more detailed now, so I will not nominate it for deletion again. If anyone else feels the article is unencyclopedic, then it is up to them, but I have thought about it, and I think it does belong in Wikipedia. I apologise for the trouble, and thank you for your persistance in adding this information. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for reconsidering your stance and altering your decision. I can appreciate that it is difficult to determine what is worthy for inclusion, and I am glad that you are able to take an objective approach.

Thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerau81 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. I try to make as few mistakes as possible, but of course, it happens to everyone. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: Speedy deletion of Image:SurfTensionContactAngle.gif

This image already has a .png replacement in commons. So I have no problem with its immediate deletion. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 23:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to have your approval, thanks for letting me know. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of chemical structures

Hi Hennessey, Patrick, you have tagged several chemical structures for speedy deletion and the images have immediately been deleted. The images were tagged as 'superseeded by SVG' for quite a while, however, many of these svg images are of a very low quality and/or contain errors. I have the suspicion that the 'superseeded' tags on many of these structures were not justified, but it is difficult to judge as the png are gone. I wish you had contacted somebody from the Wikiproject Chemistry before starting your action. :-( Сасусlе 03:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Especially structures from User:Isilanes contained errors in the past and should carefully be examined before deleting their counterpart. Сасусlе 03:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Before I nominated any of these images for speedy deletion I checked to see that the images looked the same, and were no longer in use. If any of the new images have errors in them then chances are the old one had the same error. I will continue to mark redundant images for speedy deletion and I will make absolutely sure they show the same information before I tag them. Thanks for pointing this out to me, however if the new and old images both contain errors then we still might as well only keep the one of them. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not only about errors (which are often difficult to spot for a lay person), it is also about quality (which many of the self-tagged svg replacements lack, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry/Structure_drawing). It would be the best if you let somebody experienced check the structure pairs before you tag them for speedy deletion. I would volunteer. Сасусlе 04:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's fair enough, I won't tag any more chemical structures. The list I was using to find the superceded images is Category:Vector version available, if you (or anyone with the neccesary knowledge) would check them for errors or quality faults, and either tag them for speedy deletion or remove the "SVG available" tag, that would be very helpful. Thanks in advance! Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

[edit] Deletion of article: Anadolu Jet

Hi,

My name is Abdullah Nergiz and work for Turkish Airlines.

Turkish Airlines currently has a sub-branding project called Anadolu Jet.

I created the article and prepared for developments in the future.

But the article has been deleted.

Could you please help.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anergiz (talk • contribs) 12:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Help with what exactly? The article was deleted because it did not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and since you have told me that you work for this company, it appears that you are trying to advertise your company, which is not allowed. If the article cited references from a respected newspaper or similar third party information source for example, then it would meet the notability guidelines. Thanks. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] use of TW

Please dont use TW warning template for personal disputes, a check of your edit count shows

Edit count for Hennessey, Patrick

2006-11-10 09:37:27 - 2008-03-10 04:23:52

Total: 1776 edits over 1391 pages

First edit: 2006-11-10 09:37:27 (UTC)

Statistics between 2006-11-10 09:37:27 and now

While Little teddy should have just highlighted the discrepency and discussed it here, the warning is unwarranted as his edit is accurate, according to available tools. Gnangarra 04:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Whilst as I see it, a factual error is a factual error whether in an article or on one's own user page, I can see your point about the use of warning templates in this case, and that won't happen again. However I still insist that the 2,000+ edits number is correct, and I will upload a screenshot of my preferences pane here within 1 hour to prove this. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is the screenshot, as promised. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:User-Hennessey, Patrick - Edit count evidence 1.jpg

sequentual talk pages are the preferred format that way others can quickly see whats actually going, part of WP:ETIQUETTE is not changing talk pages. Any the accepted practice is to use the kates tool(as used in RFA's) which is accessible to everybody, I have deleted the image its not necessary suffice to say yeah it does say 2100 odd edits but you are the only one that can see that figure. I also driected LT to etiquette and advised him that normal practice is to discuss on user talk pages, not to change user pages. Ultimately its not the number of edits its how you have used them that most editors look at. Gnangarra 07:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Patrick - I think we were both in the wrong! According to WP:UP#OWN, 'by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others'. I'm sorry for causing any inconvenience. If you go to your userpage and click on the words '2000 contributions' there will be a link to 'User name's' edit count. You may like to edit the userbox to read like this so the link does not point to User name's edit count, rather yours:

{{user contrib|2000|Hennessey, Patrick|id-bg=#bbbbee|info-bg=#ddddff|id-font=#000033|info-font=#333366|border=#aaaaaa}}

This way anyone coming to your userpage can easily access your complete (i.e. sorted by namespace) edit count. I won't hold anything against you, I promise! I hope this helps! Littleteddy (roar!) 09:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I love your RfA criteria! Littleteddy (roar!) 09:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Re to Gnangarra: My talk page is still sequential, I just sort it by category. I did change the inbox instructions however, as I can see how responding to a mid-page section at the bottom of the page would screw things up. As for the edit count business, I will change my user page to show both the preference pane number and the Kate's tool number, that way hopefully everyone is happy. And as for the image, that's fair enough, no need for it anymore. Thanks. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Re to Littleteddy: "We are both wrong" - That sounds fair to me. I guess we both learned something here. As I said to Gnangarra, I will use both user count numbers from now on, and hopefully this will satisfy everyone. Thanks for accepting my apology, and thanks for the tip about the wikicode, I will use that, and thanks about the RfA criteria - I like to specify how I am judging editors, and I was hoping it would seem fair and not too fiddly. Thanks. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for the fix

I was just going to fix that, but we edit conflicted. Thanks for the repair! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Patrick Hennessey (Speak) 15:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your support!

Hello, and thanks for your support in my recent RFA! The final result was 61/0/3, so I've been issued the mop! I'm extremely grateful for your confidence in me and will strive to live up to it. Thanks again! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and congratulations! Patrick Hennessey (Speak) 01:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank-you

Hi Hennessey, Patrick! Thank-you for your support in my RfA (91/1/1). I take all the comments to heart and hope I can fulfil the role of being an admin to the high standard that the community deserves. Seraphim♥ Whipp 17:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I was amused by your RfA criteria and evaluation :). Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 17:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, congratulations! I hope the RfA criteria looked fair. Patrick Hennessey (Speak) 01:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the support

Hi there Patrick. Just wanted to say thanks for your support in my recently unsuccessful RfA. If everyone used an algorithm like yours to create an RfA opinion, I'd have floated to adminship. Anyway, thanks again, and I hope to have your support in a few months when I try again. Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to supporting you again, as you do seem trustworthy! Your RfA came fairly close as far as the number of votes alone goes, so I think with a few more months experience, you should have no problem passing. Good luck! Patrick Hennessey (Speak) 21:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA - February 1, 2008

This section contains messages related to my request for adminship which started on February 1, 2008 that I have received and read. Please place new messages in the "Inbox" section.

[edit] February 2008

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hennessey, Patrick

May I suggest you withdraw this? The community generally looks for several things in administrators, including experience, which unfortunately you have not demonstrated that much, according to the opposition comments. If you leave a note at WT:RFA or WP:BN somebody can close it for you. Good luck either way, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this feedback, however since I have already added the RfA page I can't see the harm in leaving it up. Even though you are right that my application will almost certainly fail, the feedback received from users opposing the RfA will be useful in helping me learn what I need to know before I apply again. Thank you. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are looking for feedback, then can I suggest you ask for an editor review? Some people who express opinions on WP:RFA consider leaving an RfA up after it is obvious that it will fail isn't appropriate. Its possible that leaving it there might be seen as a negative in a future RfA application. Editor review really is a better way to go at this stage. Whatever you decide, good luck and please keep up the great anti-vandalism work that you've been doing. Best, Gwernol 00:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Gwernol, you have a point, I think I will take your, and Dihydrogen Monoxide's advice, and withdraw, keep doing what I am doing, try to branch out somewhat, and try again later. Thanks for the advice. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad you're enthusiastic about helping Wikipedia and would encourage you to continue your good work. In case its of use, I wrote a few thoughts on being an admin a while back. These are just my personal opinions, but they may be of help. Good luck, Gwernol 00:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that information, it does look useful and I will keep it in mind. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Withdrawal of RfA

I have withdrawn my RfA today, the following is my "concession speech" copied from the RfA page. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I have decided to withdraw my application as it has become obvious it has very little chance of success. I will continue with my counter-vandalism work, try branching out to other forms of editing, and apply again for adminship at a later time. I would like to thank everyone who participated by voting and / or leaving comments as I will find this information useful as a guide to what I need to learn. Thank you. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your request for adminship

In accordance with your request for a withdrawal, I have closed your RfA. Feel free to re-apply when you believe you have addressed the issues in the oppose section, and are ready to run again. If it's any help, some of our best admins did not pass their first RfAs either. Good luck. Acalamari 01:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of the withdrawal. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've given you rollback. After a look at your edits, you are an excellent vandal-fighter, and I can trust you to use rollback correctly, and not to abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For more information on rollback, see Wikipedia:new admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. Good luck. Acalamari 03:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I have already been using the rollback feature in Twinkle a fair amount, but I'm sure the more tools I have, the more effective I can be. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Acalamari 17:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings and block notices

This section contains warnings about my conduct on Wikipedia as well as block notices, I plan not to incur any new items in this section! Please place new messages in the "Inbox" section.

I am happy to say that I have not incurred any warnings or blocks.

[edit] Other notifications

This section contains notifications regarding events such as an article I have worked on being nominated for AfD, or any similar notification that is not conduct related. Please place new messages in the "Inbox" section.

[edit] March 2008

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Rebecca Coad - Campaign photo 001.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Rebecca Coad - Campaign photo 001.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content 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 this non-free 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 non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content 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, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. nat.utoronto 17:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Rebecca Coad

An editor has nominated Rebecca Coad, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Coad and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Rebecca Coad - Campaign photo 001.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Rebecca Coad - Campaign photo 001.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 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inbox

This section contains all messages that I have not yet read. Please place new messages at the end of this section. If you are responding to a message in an above section please reply in that section.