User talk:Noitall

Hi,

I notice you've listed several images for deletion on the basis of copyright. One of them was contributed by me - Image:SunsetBoulevardWilliamHolden.jpg. While I approve of efforts to reduce the number of suspect copyright images, there is a legitimate case for fair use. With this particular image I established fair use to the satisfaction of other contributors during Wikipedia:Featured article process for the article Sunset Boulevard. I have correctly acknowledged copyright, so for you to say that it's "clearly copyrighted" suggests you haven't actually taken the time to read what I've added to the description page. I have tagged and justified the images as per Wikipedia: fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page. I object to you randomly asking for images to be deleted. I say "randomly" because there are 3 screenshot images in the Sunset Boulevard article, all tagged similarly and all with identical copyright, and you've chosen to nominate only one for deletion. I haven't looked at everything you've nominated, but my comments apply equally to the promo photos used in Iron Maiden. Thanks Rossrs 11:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it. As you noted on another talk page, I noted on Jimbo's page that the copyright actions of a few are greatly harming Wiki. I have not run into you before, so I hope you don't take anything personally. Unfortunately, the only copyright policy on Wiki is currently the revenge deletion policy. There is no consistency and valid and valuable images have been targeted for deletion while other entirely inappropriate and unencyclopeic remain. Throw on top of this the deletions on the spot by any editor for no reason and the attack deletion policy of juvenile and disruptive editors, and you have a real Wiki problem. The pictures you note above have far less copyright protection than many images that have been targeted and deleted recently. Therefore, in the name of consistency, they must go. It is truly a shame that others have set such a poor policy for no reason whatsoever. --Noitall 03:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that the use of the image complies with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies as stated in Wikipedia:Fair use, Image description page etc. Whether you agree, or even understand, is beside the point. I don't understand your argument, or the randomness of the choices you've made, or the fact that you have not actually addressed my comments. I also don't understand how your approach in nominating certain images for deletion compensates for other deletions that you disagreed with. You know, that's all fine. "Fair use" does have a legal status, and in Jimbo's various comments about fair use, he acknowledges that their use is acceptable under the very conditions in which I used this particular image. Ultimately it won't be decided by you, or by me, whether it stays or goes.

I'm not taking this personally as you suggested I shouldn't but I do feel there is malice in your nomination, although it is not directed at me personally. I take exception to your assertion that you are acting "in the name of consistency". That's the biggest load of self-serving nonsense I've read because your nominations are anything but consistent. There are thousands of screenshots and "fair use" images where the contributor has made zero effort to establish a case for "fair use". Nominate them all, then I'll accept that you are working for "consistency". In the meantime, reading Darkfred's comments about your "no source" image contributions, it does appear that you have an axe to grind. Is the real issue that you've been uploading "no source" images and they've been deleted? I accept you and I have no quarrel nor even any previous history, but it seems that purely by chance you have selected an image contributed by me to make a point. Well thanks. It's nice to meet a user with such a sense of community. Rossrs 15:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noitall, please don't make deletion nominations solely for the purpose of making a point. Reasoned, polite discussion on the appropriate pages–even on the talk page of Jimbo himself–will get you much further...and will avoid irritating innocent editors, to boot. If there are specific admins you believe are engaging in sloppy deletion, try (politely) bringing it to their attention through their talk pages. If you feel that there are serious policy lapses occurring, bring them up on the incidents page at the administrator's noticeboard.

Protesting what you believe to be harmful practices by deliberately causing additional harm is counterproductive. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I have been told many times, it is not harm if there is a copyright violation. In fact, the reason you and others are here is because lots of "favored" images are far worse than ones inappropriately targeted already. These images have clearly labeled copyright notices on them and are far worse violators than any I have seen recently targeted. It is ridiculous targeting "unsourced" images when sourced ones clearly state that it is a copyright violation.--Noitall 04:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Image:SunsetBoulevardWilliamHolden.jpg above there is likely no copyright infringement—a clear 'fair use' argument is spelled out on the image description page. (In the absence of a fair use argument, I agree that reproducing a copyrighted image such as that one would be infringement. Further, if the image were used in other placed for which the narrow fair use rules did not apply, the image would need to be removed from those articles.) Once again, if you would like to discuss or clarify your understanding of the fair use doctrine in U.S. copyright law, there are many appropriate venues. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are aware of Jimbos decree that all Fair use images with no source should be deleted, since you have been involved on his talk page on this issue. I know you don't agree with the new speedy delete policy. But we have always required that fair use labeled images give a source (It is legally necessary for us to attribute a source when invoking fair use). Please label your images with the sources from which you obtained them. I know it is a lot of work, but you are the only one who knows. Ps: with some it is pretty obvious, (fox etc), but the model shots are more difficult. Thanks, --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 13:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:( If you're going to make accusations [1] and attempt to defame me [2], it would be good if you'd at least have the courtesy to provide diff links to whatever I did towards you which you found objectionable. --Gmaxwell 00:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've still not heard from you. I would hate to open an RFC over such a petty issue, but if you're not going to reply I don't see what other choice I have. I have no clue why you're calling me names on the wiki, but I'd like to set things right if I've done something wrong. --Gmaxwell 23:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested arbitration against Zephram Stark. Please add any details or comments you feel are appropriate. Carbonite | Talk 19:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems as if this image has been deleted. It can be see here. I've asked if there is a undeletion ... primarily for template:fairuse. JDR 20:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to Image:Leslie Glass 1.jpg and edit that image description page to give the source (URL, if online; ISBN, if scanned from a book; and if you've taken the image yourself, just say so) and the licensing status (the list of image copyright tags might be useful) of this image. All our images should have this information. Thank you. Lupo 10:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC) (Also Image:Leslie Glass 2.jpg. If you claim "fair use" on an image, you should also provide a detailed fair use rationale addressing the four points of fair use.)[reply]

Also Image:Jordan 11.jpg and Image:Jordan 15.jpg, please. Lupo 10:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And Image:CandiceMBeckman.jpg. Lupo 10:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hipocrite has nominated User:Lord Voldemort for adminship here. I encourage you to go and vote as he seems wholely unfit for adminship. Agriculture 23:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of your old buddies is back User:-Ril-....he just made a strange edit to the encyclopedic merit project...me eyes are on him.--MONGO 20:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration case centred on Yuber, to which you gave comment, has closed. As a result of this:

• Both Yuber and Guy Montag are each placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year from the date of closing this case (9th of October, 2005). Should any sysop feel that it is necessary that either of them be banned from an article where they is engaged in edit warring, removal of sourced material, POV reorganizations of the article, or any other activity which the user considers disruptive they shall place a template {{Yuber banned}} or {{Guy Montag banned}} as appropriate at the top of the talk page of the article, and notify them on their talk page. The template shall include the ending date of the ban (one year from this decision) and a link to Wikipedia:Probation. The template may be removed by any editor, including them, at the end of the ban. If they edit an article they are banned from, you will be briefly blocked from editing Wikipedia, for up to a week for repeat offenses.
• Yuber is instructed to use only this account, and no anonymous IPs. What editing constitutes Yuber's is up to any sysop to decide. If Yuber violates this, any sysop is authorised to ban them for up to a week.
• Guy Montag is banned from editing any article related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the date of closing this case (9th of October, 2005).

Yours,

James F. (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noitall, we've run into each other before dealing with images for washington monuments, so i thought i would drop you a line since you're semi-familiar with my work. i'm currently running for an admin position so i thought i'd let you know if you wanted to check out the vote page. If you've liked my work and think i'm worthy, i'd appreciate you checking it out. thanks in advance and if you ever need anything drop me a message. --ScottyBoy900Q 01:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over (old) comments on the Republican Party talk page I was left wondering by your comment here (third from the bottom). It seemed especially terse and I wondered to whom you were responding. Rkevins82 - TALK 23:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril- case. →Raul654 02:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fred Bauder has drafted a finding of fact describing the focus of the dispute in the Zephram Stark arbitration case, and has added it to the proposed-decision page at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Proposed_decision#Focus_of_dispute, where it is currently being voted on. It says:

"The focus of this dispute is the article terrorism which according to Zephram Stark deteriorated due to the aggressive editing and other actions of Jayjg and SlimVirgin. He has waged a campaign to restore what he considers an adequate article, free of the complex ambiguities introduced by his opponents, see Talk:Terrorism/Archive_6#NPOV_solutions and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Evidence#ZS.27s_changes_to_Terrorism."

I feel this is not an accurate way to summarize the dispute. As I understand you were involved in this on Talk:Terrorism, would you mind taking a look, please, and perhaps commenting on it? The discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Workshop#Focus_of_dispute. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten into a nasty revert war and could use some help--1 ^ 03:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you got a minute can you take a look at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 7#Category:Soviet spies to Category:Aed Soviet spies. This is a challenge to the sourcing of Venona project materials & direct related article series. Thank you. nobs 20:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Sherurcij. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see you have Gmaxwell listed as a vandal. That can't be right, he's one of our key anti-vandalism bot operators. Please either substantiate your claim with diffs, or remove it.

Possibly the other people you list are indeed vandals, but you might have to check each one to see if there aren't further false positives.

Problems like this is why it's generally not wise to have lists of comments on users on your user page. Consider removing the list entirely.

Kim Bruning 02:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Legal Definition of Marriage by State.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Nooby_god | Talk 01:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Beslan School Terror - morning gym 1 - Sept 6, 2004.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Wetman 18:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Beslan_School_Terror_-_Relatives_of_Irina,_13,_Alina,_12_(1).jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 11:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Uncovering the Real Abe Lincoln, Time Magazine, July 4, 2005.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Ta bu shi da yu 12:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Beslan_School_Terror_-_Sept_1_celebration_at_School_No._1,_2002_-_.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 07:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Beslan School Terror - morning gym 1 - Sept 6, 2004.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — THOR ^{| File:Lfucg-flag.gif} 04:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Jeri Ryan 8.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an arguement why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 13:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.

The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.

I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here [3] Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights 06:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Beslan_School_Terror_-_terrorist_4_-_Sept_1,_2004.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noitall,

I saw that you have edited this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney

This page is the #2 site that comes up when doing a "Mitt Romney" google. In my opinion, it is better than any other Mitt Romney article. However, it is not very comprehensive. I'm trying to make something more like a Mitt Romney book, instead of a Mitt Romney Article. The website is here:

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/

I examine many additional topics, but I want more perspectives than just my own. I would like you to help contribute, if you would like. Just e-mail me at: mike.laub@gmail.com, and I will give you the password!

Until we get more people working on it, I would like to keep the password a secret. I do not have enough time to correct graffiti.

Hi sorry to bother you but I started a new vote to have 'bill oreilly' routed directly to bill oreilly (commentator) and the current bill oreilly page made teh bill oreilly (disambiguation) page. This vote is taking place at Talk:Bill_O'Reilly#New_Vote_on_Disambiguation_page The previous vote was posted on the Cricket fan activism group to pull votes and so it seems only fair to inform people who might find it convenient to link directly to a page used more often.Mrdthree 07:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Uncovering the Real Abe Lincoln, Time Magazine, July 4, 2005.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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. WjBscribe 17:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Victoria_Zdrok_3.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:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace 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 any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Videmus Omnia 03:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:Victoria_Zdrok_3.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 03:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:Victoria_Zdrok_18.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 03:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:Beslan_School_Terror_-_terrorist_4_-_Sept_1,_2004.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Bleh999 06:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Beslan_School_Terror_-_terrorist_4_-_Sept_1,_2004.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Bleh999 11:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:Blaze_Starr_bids_farewell_to_town—Dick_Childress,_Sun_papers_1a.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:Blaze_Starr_movie_2.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"By the way, where is Lincoln, Nebraska?" - where is Nebraska? -Ashley Pomeroy 14:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Lakemont Memorial Gardens, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Karanacs 20:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC) on[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:UK Sun Front Page,Beslan School Terror, 2,Sept 6,2004.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Baltimore Stadium, 33rd Street - Army Navy Game 1944 a.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Balt. Fire 1904 - West from Pratt and Gay Streets 3a.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Baltimore Fire 1904 - West from Pratt and Gay Streets 3a.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: [[Image:Baltimore Fire 1904 - West from Pratt and Gay Streets 3a.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. TEDickey (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nikki Benz. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Wikipedia's BLP policy requires that all potentially sensitive information regarding living persons be referenced to reliable sources, and disqualifies self-published sources or sources which rely on user-generated content. The supposed "real names" or "birth names" of pornographic performers, by established consensus, are considered sensitive informastion. If you continue to insert such inadequately sourced claims into any Wikipedia articles, you are likely to have your editing privileges suspended. Wikipedia's BLP policy implements a directive from the Wikimedia Foundation, and editors who remove content which violate BLP, like your edits to Nikki Benz, are generally exempted from 3RR/edit warring sanctions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is why only 4th graders and power-hungry no-lifes edit on Wiki. If you looked at the 3 THREE sources I provided, the name is well-known. EVEN MORE, SHE PUTS HER OWN NAME ON HER OWN FACEBOOK PAGE. But instead, we have serial reverters who do no work, check no sources, and are either really lazy or just power hungry fools. AND EVEN MORE, A POWER HUNGRY FOOL SUCH AS YOU THREATENS ME BECAUSE IT IS YOUR LITTLE SANDBOX THAT YOU WANT TO PLAY IN, AND WIKI GIVES YOU ALL THE POWER. Instead, how about editing and making it better, ha?

Thanks for uploading File:Blaze Starr movie 2.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Washington Statue, Druid Hill Park, May 30, 1894 a.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For insisting on the public-friendly term for the article on the public issue of Islamic terrorism. Nxavar (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]