User talk:Eachwiped/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Endgame 1983.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Endgame 1983.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 05:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Fields

Just a friendly heads up on William Fields. I removed your speedy deletion tag, as that disambiguation page doesn't meet the definition of patent nonsense. Was there a particular problem with the page that you were trying to address with the speedy request? I'll be glad to help, but I'm not seeing a reason for deletion. Thanks! --Fabrictramp 15:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

Please be sure to add an Edit summary to your edits so that others don't have to open up the article to find what changes you have made. For example, for your TOO LONG template just type "Too-long template added" Thanks - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] why long article labels?

Believe me, the discussion about length has already occurred thoroughly, several times on articles such as WWII and the Civil War, and probably every article you've cited. No need to throw out the possibility when it's been hashed out. I paid the most attention to the WWII article talk--don't bother,(and I don't think these article are too long). Saros136 (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Tagging long articles with which you've had little participation comes across as disruptive, especially when those articles' length has been the subject of much conversation on talk (and it appears you haven't bothered to read that talk). Please refrain from tagging American Civil War, especially since the article's 60% shorter than it was just 90 days ago. BusterD (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
You also need to be cognizant of what constitutes an article's size. You tagged Seattle, Washington as being very long, but the readable text within the article is only 42k, which is well within WP:SIZE's guidelines. The remaining 62k is mostly the result of the articles 165 references. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Ditto for San Francisco and Diana, Princess of Wales. Please be more careful in applying the verylong template. It is not adequate to look at the article size on the history; this does not calculate readable prose, but the entire page size. May I suggest that you re-review WP:SIZE and especially the note at the bottom about calculating an article's readable prose? If you wish to be constructive, please take the time to calculate an article's readable prose using the sandbox before tagging it with a verylong template. --Sfmammamia 20:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You can archive old talk, but you can't just delete comments you don't like

Deleting discussion from this talk page (unless itself vandalism) is against accepted community practive. Use this article to learn how to archive old talk: WP:ARCHIVE. You can archive as often and as many times as you wish, if like some users, you like to have a clear talk space. BusterD 12:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop

Please stop with the mass tagging. If you want to help reduce the size of some articles that are too long please take the time and do this yourself by merging information, etc. Going around and adding ugly templates to the top of major articles is not helping anything. Every single one of the verylong templates you added has been reverted and will continue to be. Please do not continue with this disruption. Yemal 02:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mae Clarke.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mae Clarke.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) 01:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Trail of Lonesome Pine.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)