User talk:A.R.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello A.R., 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  HolyRomanEmperor 12:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Image:Radar Kub.jpg

Hi, I notice you have tagged Image:Radar Kub.jpg with a generic {{PD}} tag. Did this image come from a US military site? If so, could you please add the appropriate more-specific public domain tag. Could you please also do the same for any similar images you've uploaded and also provide the source URL in the image description. Thanks! David Johnson [T|C] 00:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Objecto-libertarianism

Please consider Wikipedia:No original research carefully. The term "objecto-libertarianism" does not appear in any dictionary, encyclopedia or web page I've checked, which suggests it is not notable enough to appear in an encyclopedia.

The material could belong to existing articles like objectivism and libertarianism, but "objecto-libertarianism" as a concept is as far as I can tell not treated by any secondary source we could use as an encyclopedia. Wikipedia does not promote novel ideas.

As it stands, this article would almost certainly be deleted if a vote were to be held on it. Consider if there's a better way to incorporate the information than a separate article. JRM · Talk 14:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I've put a Merge tag on it suggesting it be merged with Neo-Objectivism which, from my understanding of Objecto-libertarianism as described by the article, is the vastly more common name for the same thing. I suggest further discussion of this be moved to Talk:Objecto-libertarianism. Kurt Weber 14:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Rafale and CVN 74.jpg

Regarding the above, a good find and excellent addition to the Rafale page! Mark83 22:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:5N62.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:5N62.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 on Wikipedia 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. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags.

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:TPS-59_in_a_radome.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TPS-59_in_a_radome.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 on Wikipedia 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. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 23:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Rafale and CVN 74.jpg again

Hi, I was wondering why you removed this image from the Dassault Rafale article and why you removed the copyright information from the image itself. The image is a nice addition to the article and the copyright seems to be in order [1].--Sylvain Mielot 19:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image:Rafale and CVN 74.jpg again

Hi, The reason is that there is an image in Wikicommons with the same name, and I wish that picture to appear in the "Dassault Rafale" article, but there is simply no way to have it appear unless the picture in Wikipedia is *removed* first; And since there is no way to delete anything from Wikipedia (such as an image), the only it *is* possible to delete the Wikipedia image is to remove its copyright information and wait for it to be automatically removed.

Cool! thanks for the answer. --Sylvain Mielot 01:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Designation of USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63)

Hi I noticed that you changed the designation of USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) to USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63). While this really isn't that big of a deal, we have come to a consensus over at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships), to use the hypen in USN ships. This is basically to keep a standard format for the naming of ship articles throughout wikipedia. I have reverted your changes and if you still disagree then I'd ask that you or I start a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships). Thanks -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 16:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USS Ranger (CVA-61) vs USS Ranger (CV-61)

I noticed that you moved USS Ranger (CVA-61) to USS Ranger (CV-61). I reverted this move for two reasons:

  1. this isn't the proper way to move an article. For more info please see Help:Moving a page
  2. I'm not certain this is the most common designation for this ship. Since it was redesignated in 1975, that gives it 18 years under one designation and another 18 years under the other. If you still think it should be moved, add it to Wikipedia:Requested moves, and make a case for it there. Thanks -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 19:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to SS-1 (disambiguation)

Your recent edit to SS-1 (disambiguation) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 19:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] SS-1

I've fixed this. You seem to have moved SS-1 to SS-1 (disambiguation), then cut and paste the content into SS-1 (rifle), finally updating the disambiguation page. What this did was left the editing history for the rifle article with the disambiguation page. What I've done is move the disambig page to SS-1 (rifle) so it has all the edit history, and then create the disambiguation page as a new page. --pgk(talk) 19:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image Tagging Image:ZPU-2 of Hizballah.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:ZPU-2 of Hizballah.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 argument 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. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Night Gyr 15:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Unspecified source for Image:060706-N-0000X-001.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:060706-N-0000X-001.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify 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 file 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 meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Note that any unsourced and untagged images may 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. Dual Freq 13:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Herzliya airport

Hi A.R.

You should not have moved Herzliya airport to Herzlia airport, as that spelling is inconsistant with the transliteration adopted for הרצליה - Herzliya (which you'll find that Herzlia redirects to). In the future, please try to investigate a bit more before moving pages, as it is slightly difficult to undo a page move. Thanks for your effort though, and keep on editing. Cheers, TewfikTalk 06:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] STS-121

Hi. I have reverted your edit involving using th in dates. Please read the Manual of Style for dates -- dates are written as [[dd mmmm]] [[yyyy]] and would then be formatted for each user's special preferences. Here is the format you used specifically listed as an example of an erraneous format. If you would like to see dates in such format, go to My Preferences and choose the format you want from the Date & Time tab. Regards and happy editing. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 18:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Unspecified source for Image:CFB Cold Lake satellite view.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:CFB Cold Lake satellite view.JPG. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify 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 file 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 meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may 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. Jkelly 17:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Harper

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:S Harper high.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:S Harper high.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

69.194.188.200 23:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:FPS-117.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FPS-117.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify 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 file 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 meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may 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. Fritz S. (Talk) 09:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Its and It's

I'm pretty sure the first usage of its was grammatically correct seeing how it's is a replacement of it is. A good way to check is to see if 'it is' works in that case. "Despite it is wet climate" for example, which as apparent, doesn't work. Lily Towerstalk 06:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Unspecified source for Image:ZPU-4 of Hizballah.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:ZPU-4 of Hizballah.JPG. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify 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 file 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 meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may 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. Banzoo 20:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:AN TPS-59 radar.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AN TPS-59 radar.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify 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 file 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 meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may 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. Sherool (talk) 10:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

STOP!

Why are you creating all of those redirects? They don't seem to serve much of a purpose, and they're spamming the recent changes.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Designations for Soviet and Russian weapons

STOP!

Please, read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (missiles and unguided rockets): "Russian/Soviet missiles and rockets: Design bureau and number: Vympel R-37, Bisnovat R-40. If the name without design bureau is much more common, use that: S-200. The NATO reporting name, though not part of the official designation, are in many cases the name by which the aircraft is best known in the West, and can redirect to the article under the correct name. " Then answer my questions below.

Why are you constantly replacing official designationg used by manufacturers in names of Soviet and Russian weapons by their NATO reporting names? And why do you call NATO's designations "standard ones"? Should we use Soviet designations as standard for NATO weapons? It looks absurd for me. Look, for example, at Chinese weapons C-802, Silkworm missile, Taiwanese Hsiung Feng I, etc. - names, given by their manufacturers are always preferred.

By the way, why do you revert other additions without any explanations - like here, here, here, here, etc.? You dislike mentioning GRAU in the article - leaving e.g. a bunch of numbers 9К330/9К331/9К332 instead of proposed by me "GRAU designation of the earliest model is 9K330", like you did here? Or what? Cmapm 19:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conspicuous consumption

Hello, I noticed you put a {{Critical reading}} tag on the Conspicuous consumption article saying it is disputed. I wonder if you could explain your dispute on the talk page. Otherwise I am minded to remove it. Thanks. -- zzuuzz(talk) 22:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Could you please stop introducing your POV and finally take into account Wikipedia community's recommendations concerning designations for Soviet missiles here? Or should I report you as an "annoying user" or take similar unpleasant actions in response to your POV pushing? Cmapm 00:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Critical reading

Template:Critical reading has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — coelacan — 00:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Russian surface-to-air missiles

I noticed that you have reverted my improvements of this template. All links I changed were not the real links, but redirects. For example, SA-1 Guild is a redirect to S-25 Berkut and so on. If you look how the template looks like on that page, you can notice that the link in the template transformed to the bold text. When you're using redirects, it will stay as the recurrent self-link. --Yuriy Lapitskiy 14:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Master of Business Administration

Please note that Wikipedia:Manual of style#Acronyms and abbreviations states, "Contemporary style omits many periods and spaces that were traditionally required. For example, PhD is preferred over Ph.D. or Ph. D." Likewise, MBA is preferred over M.B.A. I have reverted all instances of M.B.A. back to MBA in the Master of Business Administration article. -Amatulic 22:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Straightflush01.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Straightflush01.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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:5N62_1.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:5N62_1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. BigDT 03:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Saar5.jpg

What is the source of this image? and why do you think it's PD?Ingsoc 00:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Could ypu answer me? I want to move this pic to Commons and I need that info in order to do it.Ingsoc 10:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CFD

I've put two categories you created up for deletion here. I'm afraid I don't think them particularly useful, and Category:American Republicanists is not American, at least to my ear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be a courtesy if you would at least read our articles before devising categories for them. There is no such word in American English as Republicanist; and James Madison, one of the founders of the Democratic Republicans, was never a Federalist; Patrick Henry, however, was. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, Septentrionalis? Should I quote from the articles themselves? Here is a quote from the first part in the article about James Madison: "During and after the war, Madison reversed many of his positions. By 1815, he supported the creation of the second National Bank, a strong military, and a high tariff to protect the new factories opened during the war". These are absolutely, completely Federalist stances, especially the main issue: the National Bank.
In the categories about "Federalists" and "Republicanists" I did not refer to the persons' party memberships (Federalist Party or Democratic-Republican Party), but to their ideas and the political acts they performed as a result of those ideas.
As to Patrick Henry, I admit I was indeed wrong; He was an Antifederalist and then became Federalist; Hence, he should be in the category "Both".
And about the word "Republican" versus "Republicanist": Firstly, "Republican" would mean, to a modern ear, a member or supporter of the present-day Republican Party. Secondly, "Republicanist" is on the same weight as "Federalist". If the word "Federalist" exists, so should "Republicanist". Even if it weren't so, the first reason I mentioned – to save Wikipedia users from utter confusion – is important enough, as I think.
Furthermore, an article named "Republicanism in the United States" is alive and kicking. That's exactly the ideology whose supporters are "Republicanists" (surely no one would claim that "Republicans", i.e. supporters of modern Republican Party, do all support "Republicanism").
Last words on the entire subject: the Republicanist-Federalist debate was one of the most important ideological conflicts in the history of the United States, the country that later became leader of the world. Issues related to central government's power and to constitutional law still make headlines today. So why not include a category that tells about the Nation's politicians back then and their stand in that crucial debate?! I think it is extremely important. A.R. 08:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Saar5.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Saar5.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Garion96 (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

Howdy, I noticed your work creating redirects such as Fa (musical note). It is great work and much needed, I think. However I'm not sure it is best to send the redirect to the fixed-note which corresponds to it. Many people use a movable Do Solfege, with Do simply being the first note of the scale. What do you think of redirecting to the Solfege article instead? In any event, keep up the great work. Best, --TeaDrinker 08:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi TeaDrinker, thanks a lot. I personally think the following: 1. My current work is intended mainly for the musically-inexperienced, i.e. people that come into Wikipedia searching for the simplest understanding of the entire "notes" issue; 2. Yes, it is true that many people use the "movable Do solfege", but many others use the fixed note one, and by redirecting into the "solfege" page and letting the inexperienced musician "choose" which solfege to refer to, only utter confusion would be created; 3. For new guitar players, this makes the understanding of the way strings create sound and their harmonies a lot easier. Best regards, A.R. 08:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New SCOTUS categories

Have these new categories been discussed? I don't really have an objection to them, however, I would hate to see a lot of work go to waste. If there hasn't been already, there should probably be a discussion on WP:SCOTUS regarding new categorization schemes. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have an objection to them: categories like Category:United States Supreme Court cases, June 1950 are far too specific—there is absolutely no good reason to group by the month they were handed down. Not only will the opinions decided within a month have no more of a relationship to each other than with those handed down the previous or subsequent month, but most months will be very sparsely populated. Furthermore, inclusion in any of the Category:United States Supreme Court cases by date subcategories will encourage people to remove them from the general Category:United States Supreme Court cases category (which you strangely have avoided integrating your new categories into). This will make it difficult, if not impossible, to find a case article by browsing (how often do you remember the year, rather than a party name), and alphabetical browsing through the category is absolutely necessary to find an article given the difficulty of remembering case names and dealing with the variations of abbreviations. It's far better to chronologically organize cases by using list articles, and this is already done in several forms. See the contents of Category:United States Supreme Court opinions by term, Category:Lists of United States Supreme Court cases (organized by case reporter volume), and Category:Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by court.
So please stop making these categories, and stop adding articles to them until this can be discussed on the Supreme Court Wikiproject. I can guarantee that, at a minimum, the month-specific categories will be deleted, so let's talk this out first before any further effort is wasted. Postdlf 21:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Please discuss further here, at the U.S. Supreme Court WikiProject. Postdlf 22:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't notice it, but there's already a CFD here. If you have an argument about why they should be kept, that'd be the place to make it. Unless I missed something, you haven't commented about it yet.--Chaser - T 00:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:NASA_Shuttle_Landing_Facility_aerial_view.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:NASA_Shuttle_Landing_Facility_aerial_view.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. ~ Wikihermit 02:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:NASA Shuttle Landing Facility aerial view.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:NASA Shuttle Landing Facility aerial view.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. BetacommandBot 04:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RDNA

I restored the speedy tag on RDNA to enable RDNA (disambiguation) to be moved over it. Since there is no primary topic, the disambiguation page should be at the base name. -- JHunterJ 14:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global Health

Hello, first of all, you need to go here to nominate redirects. Secondly, there's nothing wrong with it. It's a redirect is all. Thanks. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Musical notes

Template:Musical notes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.. (There's already Template:Semitones, and the Fixed Do solfege isn't used in most of the English world.) — Torc2 (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfD nomination of Search From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have nominated Search From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 18:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:AN_MPQ-53_radar_(b030310f).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AN_MPQ-53_radar_(b030310f).jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 15:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation on Special K

You've provided a citation for the "Special K" quote, but this seems to be a live concert that you're referring to and not a published source. Do you have a URL you can include for this? If not, then it's more like hearsay that while interesting, would be more appropriate on a fansite or similar place. ^_^ Rachel Summers (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)