Welcome!
Hello, Hawkestone/archive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
Johnleemk |
Talk 18:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Have you seen?
-- Mais oui! 06:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
I changed it to "rivaled" because it has more Google hits than the British spelling, and of course because I'm American. I did not realize that the man in the article was British; it was a careless error on my part. Is there a Wikipedia policy for which English to use in an article? If so, please show me; I am interested in reading it. Thanks, EdGl 00:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I have seen that you have reverted the use of {{fact}} in the Adam Scott article, saying in the edit summary that you dont need to cite things that are obvious. I think that is reasonable for statements that really are obvious, but these statements are far from that. How does anyone obviously know that His good looks and Aussie charm have contributed to his popularity on tour, and placed him much in demand from corporate sponsors.? Its both POV and an opinion, so it isnt exactly a concrete fact. Saying that He is often talked of as a natural successor to Greg Norman in Australian golf, an impression reinforced when Norman's former caddy joined up with Scott in 2004. isnt obvious to anyone who hasnt heard that before (surely most people dont know this much detail about Adam Scott). I dont really think that Wikipedia articles are the place to use emotive language like 'good looks' and 'natural successor' unless there is a source of someone notable actually saying that. Remy B 18:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
What am I in ignorance of? There's nothing in the article that's notable and on a whole the article would certainly only be interesting to people who have been to or live directly around the school. There's no policy that says secondary school articles should automatically be kept. Should we have an article on every secondary school in the world? Some guy 07:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The article List of shock sites has been nominatied for deletion again. I noticed that during its past nominations for deletion you voted to have the article deleted. If you have time, please support me in my attempt to have this article deleted by casting your vote in favour of deletion. Thank you. - Conrad Devonshire 07:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I am very impressed with the high-quality improvements you made to the above-referenced page I created yesterday. Keep up the good work. (Today, I was planning to do more research into his early life and the progress of his medical care.)
I was surfing through some golf Wiki-pages and was shocked to see Green and Andy Bean appear in red. Two of golfs dominant players of the 1970s and 1980s deserved their own article.-- Hokeman 12:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Please read and follow these instructions when nominating categories for deletion. You should take particular note of Please include "cfd" or similar in the edit summary, and don't mark the edit as minor. which you are continually failing to do.
Tim! 18:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed that you've been reordering categories on articles with the notation in the edit comment of "recategorisation". I'm not sure what scheme you are using as I've not reviewed all of your changes. However, I did note that you were moving the birth and death years at the bottom of the list. A particular article I noticed was one that I had worked on as part of the US military history task force — part of the Military history WikiProject — I've adopted a standard of putting the categories in alphabetical order, which means the years categories come first, with the exception of the case of a biographical article on a living person, the Category:Living people is put after the birth year as the death year would be. I would request that you not make such changes to the military biographies (such as you did to Opha Mae Johnson. Thanks. — ERcheck @ 21:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
...has been unprotected. I explained more fully on the WP:RFPP page, but it must have fallen through the cracks. It shouldn't have been protected that long. My apologies. Syrthiss 19:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Back in April you wrote, at Wikipedia talk:Size comparisons, that, " Primetime has a passion for denigrating Wikipedia,..." Since you wrote that it has been discovered that virtually all of that user's contributions were plagiarized, and most were copyright violations. He'd been doing it very intentionally, hiding his tracks and specifically stating that it was his own work. My theory is that he is a frustrated intellectual seeking ersatz honor. But another editor's theory is that Primetime was harming the project on purpose. When I read your comment that seemed like it might be a possibility. I don't know if you have any other insight into his behavior, but if you do it'd be appreciated. He was active for at least 18 months under various names and on various Wikimedia projects, and is still trying to slip back in. Cheers, - Will Beback 09:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Why have you marked this: Category:Vocalists to Category:Singers. This was started on 30 May, but not finished for some reason as Category:Vocalists still contains 320 articles. Hawkestone 23:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) for NO BOTS ? — xaosflux Talk 04:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Hawkestone. Could you please revisit Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Fictional Businesses to Category:Fictional businesses and clarify your position? Given the debate's complex history, beginning as a speedy rename, what you wrote is ambiguous. Thanks × Meegs 20:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your note; you're right, I had misunderstood the proposal and as a result have withdrawn my vote. Warofdreams talk 00:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
You wrote that the Flemish activists category was not acceptable. Categories for deletion Could you revisit that discussion and provide your reasoning? Does your reasoning also apply to Taiwanese acvtivists and Northern Irish activists? Bejnar 17:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I was interested in your comment regarding this usage. Are you able to come up with any evidence of its use in Botswana? From my time living there, it is unknown in the country. Of course things may have changed. I await your evidence. -- Guinnog 09:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your help in the Single-grain experiment article. It was DYK for October 12. I really appreciated it. Chris 01:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm contacting you because I'm very, very disappointed and that you thought that this particular catagory was worthy of deletion in your eyes. What difference does it make if an actor appears in the live-action films yet doesn't appear in the various animated forms!? The bottom-line is that the star is Scooby-Doo. While you're at it, we might as well create subcatagories to all of the various animated incarnations of Scooby-Doo (there have been at least five since the original series from 1969) to go with the live-action films. TMC1982 13 October 2006
What I do in my free and personal time is none of your concern! And if you're going to nominate the category for Scooby-Doo actors for deletion, then you might as well do the same for all of the other Actors by series catagories. TMC1982 13 October 2006
→ A z a Toth 00:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
– Clockwork Soul 04:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
AzaBot 16:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Please vote 67.70.71.160 10:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the parent category should be renamed; the only issue at this point is that we can't put it to a CFR nomination until we have a new name ready to propose. Since there are several different terms for it in different countries, though, I've initiated a discussion so that we can hopefully come up with a suitable "generic" term. Please come provide some input at Category talk:College radio stations. Thanks. Bearcat 19:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
MER-C 03:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
That user seems to be a newbie really, only a handful of edits. Anyway "No consensus means no change" is not necessary true. Brian | (Talk) 23:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Hawkestone
I noticed you enjoy editing articles related to golf, and I was wondering if you wanted to join
WikiProject Golf? Its a chance to get your edits organised with everyone else, as well as getting some recignition. Come and join if you are interested!
Grover 09:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
what did you edit in my article Barizo? And did you add the clan thingy? No, I'm not angry it's just scary because i have a classmate with that surname
I am preparing a new CfD for the category known as "Articles with unsourced statements" (i.e., articles with one or more fact templates). Given the increasing demand for more sourcing, this cat could quite foreseeably ultimately grow to encompass the vast majority of articles on the wiki. In my estimation that's far too broad to be an effective category. But perhaps more importantly, this cat was reinstated virtually unilaterally by an admin after a successful CfD, after which another CfD was short-circuited with a very arbitrary "speedy keep" only two days after it was opened. I probably will file it this week, after I further research the background of the issues that attend to this situation. Some of the attending issues can be found in a recent exchange at Category Talk:Articles with unsourced statements#This_category_should_not_even_be_here.2C_AFAICS.
Among the various issues involved are: 1) overly inclusive categories; 2) categories that constantly change in response to minor issues in individual articles (such as when fact templates are added and removed throughout the wiki); 3) the impossiblility of ever clearing such a massive list as new fact templates are placed and removed throughout the wiki; 4) the arbitrary nature of citation-needed templates throughout the wiki--there are many facts in need of citing, and such a category only accounts for those that have been actually noted as a template; 5) administrative truncating or short-circuiting of community process as happened with "Category:Articles with unsourced statements", and what properly is the range of admin discretion in closing AfDs, CfDs and DRVs prior to seven days under the "speedy" criteria; 6) how to properly deal with mistaken or abusive admin procedure after the fact when it is later discovered after having gone "under the radar"; 7) the related widespread use of User:SmackBot, which under an initial broad grant to use the bot for "various categories" has now managed to tag fact many tens of thousands of fact templates throughout the wiki as "February 2007", thereby letting us all know nothing more than that the bot was active in February 2007.
Thought you might like to know about it. Thanks, ... Kenosis 00:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought I would let you know that this article is up for deletion again and you can vote on it at the following page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinity Christian High School (2nd nomination)
-- MJHankel 01:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I have just put the article to peer review. Would you care to take a look? Aditya Kabir 20:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Hale_Irwin_1999_book.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈ talk 17:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Byron nelson 2006 book edited.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 10:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Woosnam 2003 edition.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eqdoktor 12:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Sam Snead 2003 book.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Angr 14:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:FaldoAutobiography.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Angr 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Alliss 1977 Book.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. — Angr 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Seve 2005.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Angr 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Tom Kite 2005 DVD.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. — Angr 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Hogan 2003.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Angr 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Player 1999.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Angr 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ray Floyd's Cuttin Strokes 1996 video.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. — Angr 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Walter Hagen 2005 ed.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. — Angr 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ben Hogan The Fundamentals of Hogan by Leadbetter.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. — Angr 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Harry Vardon 2002 edited.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. — Angr 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Davis Toms Signs Autographs.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Angr 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Payne Stewart bio 2001 paperback edition.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Angr 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Hale Irwin 1999 book.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Angr 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Caddie for life jpg.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. — Angr 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Fred Couples 2000 book.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. — Angr 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Garcia 2004 book.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. — Angr 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I really don't need you taking drive-by potshots at me. It's not that I actually care what you think about, well, anything in general or me in particular, but I'd rather not spend any time wiping your [obscenity removed] off my talk page. Otto4711 20:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not want it on my talk page. DO NOT edit my talk page again. Otto4711 13:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ouimet 2002.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Angr 14:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Seeing as you took part in the CFD for Category:Mankiewicz family, I thought you might like to know that the decision to Keep was taken to Deletion Review on August 14. Cgingold 23:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Hawkestone/archive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
Johnleemk |
Talk 18:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Have you seen?
-- Mais oui! 06:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
I changed it to "rivaled" because it has more Google hits than the British spelling, and of course because I'm American. I did not realize that the man in the article was British; it was a careless error on my part. Is there a Wikipedia policy for which English to use in an article? If so, please show me; I am interested in reading it. Thanks, EdGl 00:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I have seen that you have reverted the use of {{fact}} in the Adam Scott article, saying in the edit summary that you dont need to cite things that are obvious. I think that is reasonable for statements that really are obvious, but these statements are far from that. How does anyone obviously know that His good looks and Aussie charm have contributed to his popularity on tour, and placed him much in demand from corporate sponsors.? Its both POV and an opinion, so it isnt exactly a concrete fact. Saying that He is often talked of as a natural successor to Greg Norman in Australian golf, an impression reinforced when Norman's former caddy joined up with Scott in 2004. isnt obvious to anyone who hasnt heard that before (surely most people dont know this much detail about Adam Scott). I dont really think that Wikipedia articles are the place to use emotive language like 'good looks' and 'natural successor' unless there is a source of someone notable actually saying that. Remy B 18:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
What am I in ignorance of? There's nothing in the article that's notable and on a whole the article would certainly only be interesting to people who have been to or live directly around the school. There's no policy that says secondary school articles should automatically be kept. Should we have an article on every secondary school in the world? Some guy 07:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The article List of shock sites has been nominatied for deletion again. I noticed that during its past nominations for deletion you voted to have the article deleted. If you have time, please support me in my attempt to have this article deleted by casting your vote in favour of deletion. Thank you. - Conrad Devonshire 07:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I am very impressed with the high-quality improvements you made to the above-referenced page I created yesterday. Keep up the good work. (Today, I was planning to do more research into his early life and the progress of his medical care.)
I was surfing through some golf Wiki-pages and was shocked to see Green and Andy Bean appear in red. Two of golfs dominant players of the 1970s and 1980s deserved their own article.-- Hokeman 12:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Please read and follow these instructions when nominating categories for deletion. You should take particular note of Please include "cfd" or similar in the edit summary, and don't mark the edit as minor. which you are continually failing to do.
Tim! 18:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed that you've been reordering categories on articles with the notation in the edit comment of "recategorisation". I'm not sure what scheme you are using as I've not reviewed all of your changes. However, I did note that you were moving the birth and death years at the bottom of the list. A particular article I noticed was one that I had worked on as part of the US military history task force — part of the Military history WikiProject — I've adopted a standard of putting the categories in alphabetical order, which means the years categories come first, with the exception of the case of a biographical article on a living person, the Category:Living people is put after the birth year as the death year would be. I would request that you not make such changes to the military biographies (such as you did to Opha Mae Johnson. Thanks. — ERcheck @ 21:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
...has been unprotected. I explained more fully on the WP:RFPP page, but it must have fallen through the cracks. It shouldn't have been protected that long. My apologies. Syrthiss 19:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Back in April you wrote, at Wikipedia talk:Size comparisons, that, " Primetime has a passion for denigrating Wikipedia,..." Since you wrote that it has been discovered that virtually all of that user's contributions were plagiarized, and most were copyright violations. He'd been doing it very intentionally, hiding his tracks and specifically stating that it was his own work. My theory is that he is a frustrated intellectual seeking ersatz honor. But another editor's theory is that Primetime was harming the project on purpose. When I read your comment that seemed like it might be a possibility. I don't know if you have any other insight into his behavior, but if you do it'd be appreciated. He was active for at least 18 months under various names and on various Wikimedia projects, and is still trying to slip back in. Cheers, - Will Beback 09:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Why have you marked this: Category:Vocalists to Category:Singers. This was started on 30 May, but not finished for some reason as Category:Vocalists still contains 320 articles. Hawkestone 23:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) for NO BOTS ? — xaosflux Talk 04:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Hawkestone. Could you please revisit Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Fictional Businesses to Category:Fictional businesses and clarify your position? Given the debate's complex history, beginning as a speedy rename, what you wrote is ambiguous. Thanks × Meegs 20:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your note; you're right, I had misunderstood the proposal and as a result have withdrawn my vote. Warofdreams talk 00:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
You wrote that the Flemish activists category was not acceptable. Categories for deletion Could you revisit that discussion and provide your reasoning? Does your reasoning also apply to Taiwanese acvtivists and Northern Irish activists? Bejnar 17:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I was interested in your comment regarding this usage. Are you able to come up with any evidence of its use in Botswana? From my time living there, it is unknown in the country. Of course things may have changed. I await your evidence. -- Guinnog 09:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your help in the Single-grain experiment article. It was DYK for October 12. I really appreciated it. Chris 01:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm contacting you because I'm very, very disappointed and that you thought that this particular catagory was worthy of deletion in your eyes. What difference does it make if an actor appears in the live-action films yet doesn't appear in the various animated forms!? The bottom-line is that the star is Scooby-Doo. While you're at it, we might as well create subcatagories to all of the various animated incarnations of Scooby-Doo (there have been at least five since the original series from 1969) to go with the live-action films. TMC1982 13 October 2006
What I do in my free and personal time is none of your concern! And if you're going to nominate the category for Scooby-Doo actors for deletion, then you might as well do the same for all of the other Actors by series catagories. TMC1982 13 October 2006
→ A z a Toth 00:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
– Clockwork Soul 04:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
AzaBot 16:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Please vote 67.70.71.160 10:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the parent category should be renamed; the only issue at this point is that we can't put it to a CFR nomination until we have a new name ready to propose. Since there are several different terms for it in different countries, though, I've initiated a discussion so that we can hopefully come up with a suitable "generic" term. Please come provide some input at Category talk:College radio stations. Thanks. Bearcat 19:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
MER-C 03:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
That user seems to be a newbie really, only a handful of edits. Anyway "No consensus means no change" is not necessary true. Brian | (Talk) 23:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Hawkestone
I noticed you enjoy editing articles related to golf, and I was wondering if you wanted to join
WikiProject Golf? Its a chance to get your edits organised with everyone else, as well as getting some recignition. Come and join if you are interested!
Grover 09:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
what did you edit in my article Barizo? And did you add the clan thingy? No, I'm not angry it's just scary because i have a classmate with that surname
I am preparing a new CfD for the category known as "Articles with unsourced statements" (i.e., articles with one or more fact templates). Given the increasing demand for more sourcing, this cat could quite foreseeably ultimately grow to encompass the vast majority of articles on the wiki. In my estimation that's far too broad to be an effective category. But perhaps more importantly, this cat was reinstated virtually unilaterally by an admin after a successful CfD, after which another CfD was short-circuited with a very arbitrary "speedy keep" only two days after it was opened. I probably will file it this week, after I further research the background of the issues that attend to this situation. Some of the attending issues can be found in a recent exchange at Category Talk:Articles with unsourced statements#This_category_should_not_even_be_here.2C_AFAICS.
Among the various issues involved are: 1) overly inclusive categories; 2) categories that constantly change in response to minor issues in individual articles (such as when fact templates are added and removed throughout the wiki); 3) the impossiblility of ever clearing such a massive list as new fact templates are placed and removed throughout the wiki; 4) the arbitrary nature of citation-needed templates throughout the wiki--there are many facts in need of citing, and such a category only accounts for those that have been actually noted as a template; 5) administrative truncating or short-circuiting of community process as happened with "Category:Articles with unsourced statements", and what properly is the range of admin discretion in closing AfDs, CfDs and DRVs prior to seven days under the "speedy" criteria; 6) how to properly deal with mistaken or abusive admin procedure after the fact when it is later discovered after having gone "under the radar"; 7) the related widespread use of User:SmackBot, which under an initial broad grant to use the bot for "various categories" has now managed to tag fact many tens of thousands of fact templates throughout the wiki as "February 2007", thereby letting us all know nothing more than that the bot was active in February 2007.
Thought you might like to know about it. Thanks, ... Kenosis 00:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought I would let you know that this article is up for deletion again and you can vote on it at the following page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinity Christian High School (2nd nomination)
-- MJHankel 01:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I have just put the article to peer review. Would you care to take a look? Aditya Kabir 20:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Hale_Irwin_1999_book.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈ talk 17:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Byron nelson 2006 book edited.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 10:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Woosnam 2003 edition.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eqdoktor 12:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Sam Snead 2003 book.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Angr 14:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:FaldoAutobiography.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Angr 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Alliss 1977 Book.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. — Angr 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Seve 2005.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Angr 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Tom Kite 2005 DVD.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. — Angr 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Hogan 2003.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Angr 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Player 1999.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Angr 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ray Floyd's Cuttin Strokes 1996 video.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. — Angr 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Walter Hagen 2005 ed.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. — Angr 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ben Hogan The Fundamentals of Hogan by Leadbetter.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. — Angr 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Harry Vardon 2002 edited.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. — Angr 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Davis Toms Signs Autographs.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Angr 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Payne Stewart bio 2001 paperback edition.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Angr 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Hale Irwin 1999 book.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Angr 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Caddie for life jpg.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. — Angr 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Fred Couples 2000 book.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. — Angr 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Garcia 2004 book.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. — Angr 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I really don't need you taking drive-by potshots at me. It's not that I actually care what you think about, well, anything in general or me in particular, but I'd rather not spend any time wiping your [obscenity removed] off my talk page. Otto4711 20:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not want it on my talk page. DO NOT edit my talk page again. Otto4711 13:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ouimet 2002.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Angr 14:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Seeing as you took part in the CFD for Category:Mankiewicz family, I thought you might like to know that the decision to Keep was taken to Deletion Review on August 14. Cgingold 23:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)