This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 90 support, 2 oppose, and 0 neutral. All the best, Ben MacDui Talk/ Walk 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Blackadder, Flowers on an Indian Cloth.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Had been nuked into orbit by spectacularly malfunctioning AmeliorationBot. -- Cactus.man ✍ 13:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Blackadder

And another one, but more spectacularly catastrophic. Your bot managed to decimate the article somehow. I only discovered it through an orphaned image notification caused by the edit. Could you please check your code to see how this could have happened and rectify it. Thanks. -- Cactus.man ✍ 13:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. I've found what caused that and fixed it. I'm lucky that the odds of an article matching the buggy string that caused it are very slim. Thanks for letting me know. ~ Ameliorate _{U T C} @ 22:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm not sure if you are on wikipedia now or not but if you are the DYK mainpage needs to be updated. we are currently suffering from a major backlog so prompt turnovers are really needed right now. Thanks for any help you can give. Nrswanson ( talk) 17:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot ( talk) 07:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I submitted an article for the "cloning gun" which was speedily deleted on the grounds that it "blatantly" promoted the product. I'd like to get a copy of the deleted article. And also, Is there a way to write an article on a consumer product that will not be characterized as an advertisement? any feedback you could give me would be very helpful.

Thanks, Cellstructure —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cellstructure ( talk • contribs) 19:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

HI (sorry 'bout the spammy note), DYK updates have been a bit slow and there's a bit of a shortage of admins actively involved. We are asking folks who listed themselves on Wikipedia:Did you know/Admins to update details on this page - User:Olaf Davis/DYKadmins, so we can grade everyone's involvement (and who, knows, someone may want to get involved more :) ). Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, done :) -- Cactus.man ✍ 07:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I created an article on a ground breaking scottish tricker who was one of the first people in the world to land a double cork. It was deleted as it was about "just some person" the person who deleted it admits to wanting to clean up wikipedia, but i beleive this site to be a resource for every topic.
I could also claim he did it because of opposing beliefs on this country. lol. But thats just me being a Scot.
ahaha.
Thanks in advance,
Adam Ross

If possible could the copy be sent to
hawke91@hotmail.com

What's is your connection to the Reaburn portrait of Niel Gow? And, where is it currently held? 58.169.166.165 ( talk) 13:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)oliver

No connection whatsoever, other than adding it to the Niel Gow article. The original Raeburn portrait is housed in the National Gallery of Scotland. -- Cactus.man ✍ 21:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Cactus Man, I'm a new contributor to Wikipedia. Have submitted an article about a company that has been speedily deleted twice. One of the editors suggested I ask for it to be sent back to me, and that entails asking you. Can you get me the deleted piece on Haley Limited so I can try to edit it into a suitable format? Also, if it's part of your brief, I'd appreciate any suggestions on making it publishable. Thank you.

BTW - I like to ask the following trivia question (told to me first by my son, who is a big Sean Connery fan and does a great impression of him): Q - Who was the first golfer to employ a caddy? A- Mary, Queen of Scots.

MrKeeg ( talk) 20:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey there...

I am trying to clean up some of the images with minor licensing issues and I came across Image:Mammillaria.jpg which is only used on one of your subpages User:Cactus.man/Contributions/Images which I see you have not edited in a while. I wonder if you still need the subpage and/or the image. If you do not need the sub-page, just add {{ db-author}} to the top and an admin will come and delete it. If you do not need the image, follow the instructions at WP:IfD or drop me a note and I will nominate it for you.

At a minimum, if you are going to use the image, could you go and fix the licensing on the image page and be clear about releasing the image under a GFDL license. Thanks. If you have any questions, please drop me a note on my talk page. -- Jordan 1972 ( talk) 22:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message about the license on Image:Mammillaria.jpg. I was still fairly new when I uploaded it back in 2005 and chose the wrong tag, but it seems to have slipped through the net of image tags which I keep up to date from time to time. If you spot any more of mine that seem to be wrong please let me know.

Although the image is no longer on the Cactus article (such is the way of a wiki), it does still feature from time to time on my user page. I do still need this image and my sub page. If not, I'd just delete them myself. -- Cactus.man ✍ 08:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey there... I was looking at a couple of the other images you have uploaded and came across an issue you may wish to review.

The Image:Indian Fig 2 - Opuntia ficus-indica.jpg image source is not working. When I went to look abit further, the images from your source appear to have been moved to http://calphotos.berkeley.edu. When I looked for the specific one mentioned above I did find it here but noticed an issue witht he license you have added to the image page.

You have licnesed it under a GFDL tag, but the text on the source image page states "This photo and associated text may not be used except with express written permission from Luigi Rignanese. To obtain permission for personal, academic, commercial, or other uses, or to inquire about high resolution images, prints, fees, or licensing, or if you have other questions, contact Luigi Rignanese". The restictions given by the copyright holder do not allow for free usage.

I noticed a number of your uploads are sourced to the original page, so you may wish to have a look and resouce the images.-- Jordan 1972 ( talk) 14:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Image sourcing from the web can be problematic as pages frequently move. I originally sought and received permission from the copyright holder to use his photograph under the GFDL License in September 2005. This was forwarded to the Permissions Team as they were at the time. You should also have noticed that the page clearly identified the copyright holder as © 2005 Luigi Rignanese, a clue perhaps that permission has been obtained.

I have been an administrator on this site since March 2006, so you can rest assured that I take copyright issues very seriously. In the circumstances, I'll probably resubmit the email correspondence again to the current OTRS team. I'll also update the source. You can also be certain that all my image uploads are indeed free (apart from fair use ones).

Over the course of three years, image license tags and web source locations can, and do, frequently change. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. -- Cactus.man ✍ 18:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I've emailed the text of the correspondence with the copyright holder to you. Check your inbox :) -- Cactus.man ✍ 18:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

So sorry to question an admin - of course they know all about copyright... perhaps next time I shall just slap on {{ npd}} to the other 7 images I found with the same issue. I will just leave it to someone else to worry about. Moving on.-- Jordan 1972 ( talk) 02:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No, your approach is correct. I welcome people pointing out problems so that they can be fixed. "Slapping" templates on stuff is much less productive. If you let me know which other 7 images you think there are problems with, I'll check them out and fix them where needed. -- Cactus.man ✍ 07:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

John, thanks for your email.

You note, quite correctly, that the website states "This photo and associated text may not be used except with express written permission from Heath McAllister." That is exactly what is contained in the email exchange I forwarded to you. Just to break it down:

25 Aug 2005 08:48:18 +0100: I emailed Mr McAllister requesting use of his photographs under the terms of the GFDL, explicitly stating in the request:

For Wikipedia to use your material, you must agree to the GNU Free Documentation License (often referred to as the GNU-FDL, or GFDL). In essence, the GFDL allows you to retain the copyright and authorship of your work, but grants permission for others to use, copy, and share your materials freely, and even potentially use them commercially, so long as they do not try to claim the copyright themselves, or try to prevent others from using or copying them freely (e.g., "share-alike"). You can read the complete license at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL.

27 Aug 2005 23:04:28 -0700 (PDT): Mr McAllister emailed me back confirming that he is happy for Wikipedia to use his photographs, but expressing reservations about possible commercial re-use. Clearly not GFDL compliant, so I didn't upload the image.

23 Sep 2005 13:03:36 -0700 (PDT): Mr McAllister emailed me again withdrawing his concerns about possible commercial re-use

... after looking at your Wikipedia site quite abit in the last few weeks, I've decided that Wikipdia is a truly incredible site and I would be proud to be a part of it. So I retract any previous reservations I had about letting people use the pictures from the site for profit, etc. If they do, they do, and if they don't great. But in any case I would just like to extend to you an all around green light to use any of my pictures on CalPhotos ...

In essence, per the terms of my original email request, full permission is granted by Mr McAllister to use any of his photographs on Wikipedia under the terms of the GFDL. I then uploaded the image and forwarded the emails to Permissions. I think that was in the days before the OTRS ticket system was in place, so a ticket number never materialised. I just updated the image source location a couple of days ago and thought it prudent to resubmit the permission emails. This image has been in place, with the correct permission, for over three years. I am therefore at a loss to understand why you think Mr Mcallister has not granted permission for use under the terms of the GFDL. The email exchange demonstrates that this image is officially and explicitly released by Mr McAllister for use on Wikipedia under the terms of a free license.

I'd be grateful if you'd kindly restore the image and allocate an OTRS ticket. Many thanks. -- Cactus.man ✍ 09:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

If you could reply to the e-mail I sent you via OTRS and get him to change it at the source it could be undeleted. We can't have contradictory information such as "This photo and associated text may not be used except with express written permission from Heath McAllister." John Reaves 09:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the whole point. He has given express written permission. It's not reasonable or even possible to expect external websites to remove copyright disclaimers so that all and sundry can pillage their copyright material at will. Besides, Mr McAllister is just one of hundreds of contributors to that site and it is not under his control. The website is controlled by University of California, Berkeley,CalPhotos, Berkeley Digital Library Project, and that is a standard copyright boilerplate applied to all the image pages. All the necessary permissions are in place. Please undelete the image and apply the necessary OTRS ticket. Thanks. -- Cactus.man ✍ 10:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Well forward that e-mail to OTRS. How is it not reasonable to want the copyright notice to not conflict with the essence of Wikipedia, i.e. the fact that it is free? John Reaves 10:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That's precisely what I forwarded, the email exchange as described above, granting explicit permission for use under the terms of the GFDL. Did you even read the email exchange I forwarded?

That's the whole point of the Permissions system, that individual copyright holders do not need to void their protections on their own websites, but permit specific use on Wikipedia. User A sees the copyright disclaimer at the source website, but the OTRS ticket verifies that this is specifically exempted for use on Wikipedia under an appropriate free license - no problem. The copyright holder retains his protection, grants Wikipedia free use, Permissions records this, passerby users are satisfied that all is in order. We do not need to insist on external sites modifying their copyright disclaimers. -- Cactus.man ✍ 10:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I was confused, but have had the issue clarified now. Essentially, releasing the image as GFDL negates any other claims as the GFDL is irrevocable. All get the template on this image and stat working on your other tickets. John Reaves 16:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I see you've added tickets to the other images from the same source, so many thanks for that also. -- Cactus.man ✍ 16:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this an original work or largely coppied from somewhere? Geni 04:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, but if its whether the article might be original research or a copyright violation, then the answer to both of those questions is no. Perhaps you could explain a bit further precisely what your questions are and what prompted your enquiry. I might then be able to answer in more detail. -- Cactus.man ✍ 08:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If not a copyvio then why so simular to this? Geni 10:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is not a copyright violation. You are confusing similarity with direct copying. Nevertheless, the Gazeteer article was one of the sources and should have been listed, a fault on my part. I'm not sure why I didn't include it at the time, my detailed memory doesn't stretch back 3 years sadly. I also see that the external links in the article are now dead, so something to fix there

Nevermind, I see it has been deleted under the premise of an OTRS Ticket Number. So, some untrained OTRS volunteer has applied their own (no doubt random and original) interpretation to this situation - not the first time I've encountered this pernicious problem on WP. I'll be most interested to learn the content and origin of the OTRS "complaint" that resulted in the deletion. It seems to me that deletionism is almost dead, rapidly being replaced by destructionism, fuelled vociferously by paranoid armchair lawyers.

Well, I'll just have to reconstruct this article again from scratch, perhaps no bad thing ,,, :) Maybe it will be "destructed" again. Let's wait and see ... -- Cactus.man ✍ 14:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem was that in this case there was enough dirrect copying of phraseing that you had coppied their creative expression. But eh happened some years ago. Geni

Hmm, possibly. I've re-read the content and compared it all again. I'd say that it's probably more a case of inadvertant plagiarism, particularly as the Gazeteer wasn't listed as a source. Interestingly, thats what the OTRS complaint was essentially about. Anyway, as I say, I'll rebuild the article again, hopefully with some improvement. There's also another I should probably revisit. -- Cactus.man ✍ 10:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I was re-reading an old discussion, and thought I would send you a greeting.

I really appreciated your fair and thoughtful comments at the time. I still do, and wanted to send you my best wishes.

Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 23:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi geo, thanks for your nice message - it's good to receive friendly greetings here from time to time, rather than messages from the many harbingers of doom around the place. I'm OK, still not very active as a quick glance at my contribs will reveal, but still hoping to become more productive over time. I keep an eye on things, every couple of days or so, and try to respond to messages and fix minor stuff on my watchlist.

I hope you're well also, and best wishes to you too. -- Cactus.man ✍ 21:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi cactus man, I'm askin' you a help about this image. Please, can you explain why you removed the tag {{nowcommons}} on that image? I can't understand it, in particular way this explanation: attribution history not copied to commons. What should I do to remedy to this problem? Thank you so much.
Vale maio ( talk) 12:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. I removed the template because there were a couple of minor problems with your transfer of the image to Commons.

Firstly, the GFDL Licence requires that all contributors who have added to the work are fully attributed. In other words, the article or file history should be preserved. No big deal in this case, as I was the sole uploader, but often there are many contributors. Images being transferred to Commons should have this information available. An easy way to make sure the attribution history is preserved is to use a tool such as CommonsHelper. It's very easy to use, just fill in the relevant information and off you go. It copies all the attribution history and generates an "Original upload log" section with this information plus a link back to the original source Wikipedia page. See here for an example image transferred using CommonsHelper.

Secondly, the transferred image was given a different filename. In itself this isn't a problem, but when adding the {{ nowcommons}} template it gets added to the queue for speedy deletion under Category I8. Before deletion, admins are supposed to check that all local links to the image have been updated properly to reflect the new name on Commons, but often this is overlooked. The result is that all local pages linking to the image are left with redlinks because of the name change. If you're adding this template for images you transfer to Commons with a different filename, please check which pages link to the wikipedia image using the "What links here" function in the toolbox and update all the pages to reference the new name.

I hope that explains things, but let me know if you need further information. -- Cactus.man ✍ 17:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OK cactus, now I understood... but it seems too hard for me :) please, can you move (correctly) the image for me? If you need to delete the image I've been uploaded on commons ( this one), pay attention, because it's used on italian wikipedia on this page. Thank you for your patience, and sorry for my horrible english! Ciao!
Vale maio ( talk) 00:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've updated the Commons page to include the attribution history, leaving the filename unchanged. The links on Italian Wikipedia should be unaffected. -- Cactus.man ✍ 19:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

would you userfy my article Dentokan Jujutsu. when i got back on my computer it was

nominated for speedy deletion, and deleted before i could do something. if you would put on my user 

page i can make it better. i was not done makeing it when i saved it. Fld300b ( talk) 13:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I just heard about the emailing of deleted articles. I got halfway through reading that article, and the next day, it was deleted. That was very long ago. It would be awesome to see it again. Can you email it to me? THANKS!!!!!! Vistro ( talk) 04:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have had my pages for "ewen chia" and "mike filsaime" deleted by someone I feel is just power happy and isn't familiar with the industry I write about. Just because someone isn't familiar with something doesn't mean that it is insignificant. The editor is Andyjsmith. Just look at his talk page to see our discussion. I think this is ridiculous. Is there anything that anyone can do to stop this madness? I could easily go around deleting things just because it is not important to me, but I don't want to be a jerk. Thanks for your time.

StephenHenderson ( talk) 19:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Over the last two days I created probably at least ten articles that were all summarily and rudely deleted without any notice. It is to the point where I am not even sure of all the articles deleted. I know one was on Richard I. Kimball and another was on Marie Cornwal, and I could list several other people these articles were on. If you could userfy them and send them to me I would greatly appreciate that. Johnpacklambert ( talk) 23:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was browsing the images credited to me on the wikimedia commons and found this one of puffins - I'd love to claim it, but it's not mine. Patrick P.S. If you want to come back to me on this, please use my contact link on geograph. P.P.S. Stunning selection of photos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.7.10 ( talk) 21:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Runciman, Agrippina with the Ashes of Germanicus .jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Runciman, Agrippina with the Ashes of Germanicus.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Runciman, Agrippina with the Ashes of Germanicus.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 20:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In case you are not aware, the Wikimedia Foundation has proposed that the copyright licensing terms on the wikis operated by the WMF – including Wikipedia – be changed to include the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) license in addition to the current GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) as allowed by version 1.3 of the GFDL. The community has approved this change with 75.8% in favor, and on June 15, 2009, the change will take effect.
You currently have {{ NoMultiLicense}} on your user or user talk page, which states that your edits are licensed under the GFDL only. On or before June 15, this template will be changed to reflect Wikipedia's new licensing terms. If you accept the licensing change, you do not need to do anything (and feel free to remove this message); if you do not accept it, we regret that you will no longer be able to contribute to the encyclopedia. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#NoMultiLicense template if you have any comments.

Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 20:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC) for the Village pump. Report errors here.

Hello,

I was looking for work by the artist Roger de la Fresnaye on the Wikimedia Commons site & came across your reproduction of 'Conquest of Air'. I am a PhD student writing an academic paper on la Fresnaye for a non-commercial/profit journal, but was saddened to find out from Scala (the painting is at MoMA) that if I want to reproduce the image, I have to buy their jpg of it. This somehow seems wrong - surely once copyright on the work has expired, the work should be free. I was therefore very interested to find the out about the copyright freedoms of images on the Wikimedia Commons. The only thing I wanted to ask you, as the uploader of the image, is if you possibly had a higher resolution image of it?

Thanks for your help,

Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.24.171 ( talk) 15:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tom, thanks for your message. I'm sorry, but the only copy I have of the image is the same size as the Commons File. You may be able to find a higher resolution copy somewhere on the web, good luck. For a discussion on the copyright issues regarding reproduction of photographs of Public Domain 2D artworks see this Commons guide. Best wishes. -- Cactus.man ✍ 19:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

As a contributor to the original teamwork, you may be interested in:

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scotland#Scotland_location

Cheers. -- Mais oui! ( talk) 12:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Christopher Wood, Coast.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I wrote an article about my successful blog and it was deleted for god knows what. Why did they delete it! and Could I have a copy of the article or have it recovered so I can have it in my records. It was called The Pop Culture Guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberts.delano ( talk • contribs) 19:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I came to you about THe Pop Culture Guy article. I set it up now so you can send me a copy through email. -- Roberts.delano ( talk) 03:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've post an article or maybe an ad about WASP panties. There is a warning posted to it that says it may or probably will be deleted. Can you help clean it up? Daisy Mae —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaeDaisy123 ( talk • contribs) 05:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I've post an article or maybe an ad about WASP panties. There is a warning posted to it that says it may or probably will be deleted. Can you help clean it up? Please email me at: Daisy@wetdaisy.com Thanks, Daisy Mae —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaeDaisy123 ( talk • contribs) 05:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Cactus.man, I created a page for the German car tuner "Deutsche Manufaktur" but it was deleted.

I would like you to consider re-activating my contribition. The reason names for deletion was not relevant, but plenty of other pages about German car tuners exist, for example about "Hamann Motorsport".

Thank you very much for helping me on this issue!

Stephan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanbode ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cactus.man, I was wondering if you can help me. An important part of my community is the annual Old School Show at my school. A few years ago, we made an article for the second show, but it was deleted for irrelevance. I was wondering if you could recover it for me, because we're hoping that if we can get references and stuff, and make it uhh... relevant I guess, and we'd like to use it. Even if we can't do that though, I'd still like to have a copy, because a lot of work went into it. I tried to remake the article hoping to find it in the history, but no such luck. After re-deleting it, Ttonyb1 recommended me to you. If it's possible, I would really appreiciate it. Thanks! -- Connormlh —Preceding undated comment added 00:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC).

Hi Connormlh,

I have emailed you the wiki markup for the Old School 2 article as it existed just prior to deletion on 26 May, 2008. I think this is the version you probably want to see.

Feel free to work on this in your userspace if you wish, but please bear in mind that Wiki policies on recreation of deleted material can also apply to userspace if there is no significant progress on content improvement to bring the future article into compliance with notability standards.

I hope this helps, but please let me know if you need anything else. -- Cactus.man ✍ 11:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

For Reference

As e-mailed to User, 12 December

--------------------------------------------

Yes, as I said, provided you are actually working on it to create a proper encyclopedia article. Some copy of a previously deleted article just lurking around in your userspace is not acceptable, this is why I emailed it to you and did not "userfy" it. Wikipedia is not a free web host. Please take note of Wikipedia policies about notability, reliable sources and verifiability. When you think the article meets our encyclopedic requirements you can move it into article space, but bear in mind that this does not guarantee that others will see it as such, and it may be nominated for deletion or even be speedily deleted again if it fails to meet certain relevant criteria.

I recommend you read the policies very carefully to see if this school show does actually merit an article before you add it to your userspace. Why is it notable, what differentiates this show from a zillion other school shows across the globe? What independent reliable sources have reported or made critical commentary on the show, not just the school magazine or local evening paper? I haven't researched the school show at all, but I very much doubt that it would be worthy of an article. Any assertions of notability in the article need to be supported by verifiable and reliable external sources. Please think about these matters very carefully before committing further time and effort to this, not just your own but that of others too.

I am happy to answer any further queries you have.

Regards.

Cactus.man