User talk:Mafmafmaf
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
| 2006. 2007 Jan-May |
[edit] Ellenbogen and friends
I fully share your annoyance at these outrageous articles, but I think he -- and they -- are too well known to be deleted. I've re-edited & reduced them all to size. check, and if you still want to delete them, nominate them, separately I think, for Afd. But I think they are sourceable. DGG 02:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Problem is, no one else, besides the article subjects, have worked substantially on the articles. If they are too well known, either they a) covered themselves pretty much fully; or b) err... maybe they're not too well known. And can you rm the db-spam tag? (first time I'm doing it, that's why I ask.) --maf 03:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- The first thing I want to say is that I don't work with Marc Ellenbogen, Global Panel, nor the Prague Society(I'm a student in Seattle, WA). I follow Dr. Ellenbogen's articles and when I went to look up his various organizations I noticed your critiques and deletions of these entries, which is why I began by adding a source on the Prague Society entry the other day. I understand that some of these things are self praising and unreferenced which is what I changed. You again went through and deleted what I had then cited. You are again approaching blanking according to WP's rules of vandalism and you were warned by DGG on the Prague Society discussion to stop and threatened with being blocked. You might not agree with these entries but these organizations are respected and established and have the right to have their information out there. One could believe that you have some sort of personal vendetta against Dr. Ellenbogen and these groups.--Zrahl7 2:55, 6 June 2007
- Correction: they don't have the RIGHT to have their info on WP - they are ALLOWED to have it there as long as they comply with WP's policy. The fact that I stumbled upon these articles by accident and the fact that I don't give a damn about the subject and just do policy patrol make me have absolutely no COI in this matter (thus excluding any "personal vendetta"), unlike you. Anyway, thanks for disclosing your COI - so far no one, I mean NO ONE COI-free has added any content to these articles. Does not bode well for notability, one of the key policies of WP... Finally, thank you for the additional reference, although the one comment on it does not seem flattering. Now, I'm going to again trim that section of bloat - if you want to add to it, please add sources. --maf (talk-cont) 13:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think there is some confusion here: I agree totally with the spirit and the letter of Mafmafmaf's changes and challenges. I warned him against trying to get them to stick by repeated reversion. I warn you about trying to get the materials in by repeated re-insertion of unsourced material. I see there is one sourced item now, the editorial board. (by the way, such membership are often honorary and of no particular importance, I have a few of my own) I am keeping track of this article, and if unsourced content in a biographical article is not sourced, it must be removed. The way this is properly done is to remove the material and protect the page, and I shall do just that if necessary.
- Mafmafmaf, please mark what you think to be unsourced with individual tags, but do not yourself remove it. DGG 02:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- The first thing I want to say is that I don't work with Marc Ellenbogen, Global Panel, nor the Prague Society(I'm a student in Seattle, WA). I follow Dr. Ellenbogen's articles and when I went to look up his various organizations I noticed your critiques and deletions of these entries, which is why I began by adding a source on the Prague Society entry the other day. I understand that some of these things are self praising and unreferenced which is what I changed. You again went through and deleted what I had then cited. You are again approaching blanking according to WP's rules of vandalism and you were warned by DGG on the Prague Society discussion to stop and threatened with being blocked. You might not agree with these entries but these organizations are respected and established and have the right to have their information out there. One could believe that you have some sort of personal vendetta against Dr. Ellenbogen and these groups.--Zrahl7 2:55, 6 June 2007
-
-
- Accidental edit--I have restored your comment which I hadn't noticed, and of course removed my rough draft. Thanks for noticing. DGG 01:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Reversions of Prague Society for International Cooperation, Global Panel Foundation
How do non-profit organizations fall into the category of blatant advertising? As for the sourcing, I direct you to other articles on similar non-profits and NGOs that have the same sourcing: International Crisis Group, Catholic Near East Welfare Association, Aspen Institute, World Evangelical Alliance, and hundreds of others. Your constant reversions seem very unproductive. How do you justify your versions of the entries, which happen to be equally lacking sources, and not mine? BanikPico 09:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am so glad you are talking. Here are my point-by-point answers to your questions:
- Non-profit organizations (in itself an unsourced assertion about these two entities) are not exempt, because of their status, from the fundamental policies of WP, namely notability, verifiability, and neutrality. Notability, together with verifiability, is established with external sources, something that is still non-existent on the GPF article and only partially for PS. (Consider this: what guarantee has the WP reader that the GPF is not a complete fabrication, with a bogus website, serving some obscure agenda? This is an encyclopedia, not a free no-rules content host, so even these basic details need to be verified.) Notability is also established with additional editors working on the articles, something that has been completely absent so far from all three articles (including the one on the professor Ellenbogen). Neutrality is what the "blatant advertising" warnings are about, and involves using good sense in a) removing all adjectivation, as you did in one edit, and b) keeping the article size down to the facts verifiable by external sources.
- Rules/examples for sourcing, or justifications for lack thereof, cannot be seeked within other articles, only within official policy, as otherwise it would create a vicious circle. Article A justifying its lack of sources with article B, justifying its lack of sources with article A, does NOT make both articles ok. Rest assured that, even if you find hundreds of unsourced articles, there are also articles tagged as unsourced, all of them candidates for cleanup or for deletion (and the unsourced articles will eventually end up being tagged).
- You will notice from both articles' history that I initially put them for AfD, that is, for deletion, because of total lack of verifiability, and over-adjectivation (self-serving, press-release style). Another editor intervened however and a compromise was reached in keeping stub-size barebones articles until more facts can be sourced. WP is a lot about talk and compromise. I accepted your initial edits, which looked genuinely independent. However, your later edits, just cramming back all the unosourced, self-serving prose were clearly in violation of WP's spirit and good faith, and because of that I will not compromise further, sorry. Consider this: The content of both articles has so far been added by people who have been a) insiders of the organizations, and b) not acquainted enough with WP's policies. This can only be a recipe for WP's policy violation. As for being insiders, that means there are conflicts of interest, something that WP does not forbid but that is actively discouraged, as it almost inevitably leads to NPOV and over-the-top text. As for not being acquainted with WP's policies, I've tried to explain all my actions in edit summaries every time I do a revert or an edit.
- I hope I have addressed your concerns. Summary in a nutshell: get external sources for anything additional you'd like to add. --maf (talk-cont) 10:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Nadir Afonso GAC
I'm in the process of reviewing this article. I will have to fail the article because their is a copyright warning tag on image page. I do note that it is supposedly released to the public domain per the website but I do not read Spanish and cannot verify it. If you can properly remove that warning tag it should be just fine and that problem will be gone. Let me know when you make the change at the image page. Again, I would but I cannot do so honestly not being able to verify the claim at the website. Thanks, JodyB talk 21:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your attention. I was not aware a copyvio tag had been put on the artist's photo (my fault I forgot to put the page on watch), and now it's too late to save it anyway. I will look into an alternative asap and get back to you. Thanks for the other comments you left on the article's Talk page - I will work on those issues as well. --maf (talk-cont) 00:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Why is it too late? The photo of Afonso is an excellent shot and should be used. You can remove the tag if you discuss it on the discussion page of the image and make sure you are clear that it is PD. JodyB talk 01:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- I say it's too late because the image apparently has already been deleted - although why it's still showing I don't know - the fact is that I can't edit the page anymore. This is the artist's current publicity photo, and I also think it's a nice one, but I just found another one I took myself, so please wait till I replace it and also address the other comments. I will leave a message right here after I clean-up the article so you can re-review it again. Thanks. --maf (talk-cont) 01:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Update: I just found why I couldn't edit the image on WP: it's because I had put it in the Commons. Confusing... But I'll still stick to my alternative photo now. --maf (talk-cont) 01:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- OK, done. Please take a look at my answers to your comments on Talk:Nadir Afonso#Good Article nominee. Thank you. --maf (talk-cont) 03:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- I say it's too late because the image apparently has already been deleted - although why it's still showing I don't know - the fact is that I can't edit the page anymore. This is the artist's current publicity photo, and I also think it's a nice one, but I just found another one I took myself, so please wait till I replace it and also address the other comments. I will leave a message right here after I clean-up the article so you can re-review it again. Thanks. --maf (talk-cont) 01:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Why is it too late? The photo of Afonso is an excellent shot and should be used. You can remove the tag if you discuss it on the discussion page of the image and make sure you are clear that it is PD. JodyB talk 01:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GFDL
Please do not do non-GFDL-compliant Transwikis. If you need to have stuff copied to Wiktionary, tag the Wikipedia article with "{{Copy to Wiktionary}}" instead. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 08:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's what I did - tag the article and nothing else. Any further actions, blame them possibly on some bot. Thank you. --maf (talk-cont) 12:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Nadir Afonso GAC 2
Hey, still a good job on that article. Compared to my GA effort, yours is much better. I'm only good at pointing out mistakes - I myself can't write a good article with good grammar & I have to go over the same article millions of time just to get it to the standards. Keep studying! (Wikimachine 02:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC))
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 10:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Olivença
Olá Maf. Desculpa, mas tive de reverter as tuas duas últimas edições a Olivença. O nome da cidade em português tem impreterivelmente de ser mencionado logo no início do artigo tal como acontece em todos os artigos de localidades que possuem mais que um nome oficial, reconhecido, disputado, variantes, etc.. Quanto à inclusão do template dos municípios de Évora e categoria municípios de Portugal, parece-me razoável, válido e pertinente que assim o seja, visto que Olivença é de jure um município português pertencente ao distrito de Évora. Incluir o template e as categorias é, a meu ver, uma aproximação ao WP:NPOV do artigo uma vez que faz com que não seja abrangido unicamente por categorias/templates espanhóis. Cumprimentos, Húsönd 13:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- [Google translation:] Olá Maf. Excuse, but I had to revert yours two last editions the Olivença. The name of the city in Portuguese has impreterivelmente of being mentioned soon at the beginning of the article as happens in all articles of localities that they possess more than an official name, recognized, disputed, variant, etc. How much to the inclusion of template of the cities of Évora and category cities of Portugal, he seems me reasonable, valid and pertinent that thus either, since Olivença is of swears a pertaining Portuguese city to the district of Évora. To include template and the categories is, in my opinion, an approach to the WP:NPOV of the article a time that makes with that templates is not enclosed solely by Spanish categories/. Compliments...
- I take pride in having developed the current stable version of this article. However, even my views change over time. The .pt spelling is a detail, but to include those additional categories would require that at least Portugal listed Olivenza as a de facto municipality in internal documents and procedures, which simply is not the case. Olivenza is kept at a political discussion level and never overflows into practical matters. The dispute is well represented in this article but it should be confined to here and not create noise in other articles/categories. (Why haven't you learned any Arabic yet?) --maf (talk-cont) 16:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, English then :-) (thought you'd prefer Portuguese but it's pretty much the same for me). I do agree that Portugal is mishandling its claims over Olivença, by not listing it on official lists of municipalities, not enforcing its inclusion in the vast majority (totality?) of maps published and sold in the country, not having a position about the citizenship of the people from Olivença, nor their participation in Portuguese elections, etc, etc, etc.. But I also think that despite the overwhelming disregard by the Portuguese government, it is a fact that the de jure situation exists and should not only be mentioned but also made visible. By mentioning only that Olivença is considered a part of the district of Évora while not including the Évora municipalities template sounds as if Wikipedia disregarded the official Portuguese position pretty much the same way the government has been doing. The government may well disregard, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we should strive for neutrality, which would require a full Portugal-Spain POV throughout the article (even though the name of the article contains only the Spanish form, which I concede due to common usage of the word). My opinion. Erm, arabic? :-) Regards, Húsönd 17:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- You already had a userbox with your standing on the dispute, but you have now confirmed that you have an emotional involvement in the matter, which easily contaminates any NPOV goodwill you might bring to the article. So, your edits are prejudiced, but frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. (May I also suggest Farsi? Very nice language and its WP would welcome your assistance.)
- My userbox simply stated that I support a referendum for the people of Olivença to decide once and for all to which country they want to belong. Myself, I couldn't care less, I don't live there. In fact, the userbox is totally unimportant, I don't even know why was it brought up here. Now, I want to firmly remind you of WP:CIVIL, a policy which you have bluntly violated in your comment above. The next time I witness such rudeness, you shall be blocked. Please respect WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Thank you.--Húsönd 21:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- You already had a userbox with your standing on the dispute, but you have now confirmed that you have an emotional involvement in the matter, which easily contaminates any NPOV goodwill you might bring to the article. So, your edits are prejudiced, but frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. (May I also suggest Farsi? Very nice language and its WP would welcome your assistance.)
- Ok, English then :-) (thought you'd prefer Portuguese but it's pretty much the same for me). I do agree that Portugal is mishandling its claims over Olivença, by not listing it on official lists of municipalities, not enforcing its inclusion in the vast majority (totality?) of maps published and sold in the country, not having a position about the citizenship of the people from Olivença, nor their participation in Portuguese elections, etc, etc, etc.. But I also think that despite the overwhelming disregard by the Portuguese government, it is a fact that the de jure situation exists and should not only be mentioned but also made visible. By mentioning only that Olivença is considered a part of the district of Évora while not including the Évora municipalities template sounds as if Wikipedia disregarded the official Portuguese position pretty much the same way the government has been doing. The government may well disregard, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we should strive for neutrality, which would require a full Portugal-Spain POV throughout the article (even though the name of the article contains only the Spanish form, which I concede due to common usage of the word). My opinion. Erm, arabic? :-) Regards, Húsönd 17:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I take pride in having developed the current stable version of this article. However, even my views change over time. The .pt spelling is a detail, but to include those additional categories would require that at least Portugal listed Olivenza as a de facto municipality in internal documents and procedures, which simply is not the case. Olivenza is kept at a political discussion level and never overflows into practical matters. The dispute is well represented in this article but it should be confined to here and not create noise in other articles/categories. (Why haven't you learned any Arabic yet?) --maf (talk-cont) 16:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 01:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Cidades-anos90-ParquedeSPaulo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Cidades-anos90-ParquedeSPaulo.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 09:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mythodea album cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mythodea album cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Vangelis voices.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Vangelis voices.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:1492 album cover dual.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1492 album cover dual.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:1492 album cover dual.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1492 album cover dual.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Alexander cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Alexander cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Chariots-of-fire-album.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Chariots-of-fire-album.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:El greco album cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:El greco album cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Wonk (slang)
An editor has nominated Wonk (slang), 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/Wonk (slang) 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) 23:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:061001 (7).jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:061001 (7).jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:10am-poster.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:10am-poster.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) 13:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
