User talk:AMSask

Fair use rationale for File:Audrey mclaughlin.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Audrey mclaughlin.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from Martin

Thanks for the barnstar. I have responded on my talk page. Why not join in the discussion on the CF page? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Single bullet theory

Hi. Not sure what you were trying to do with this edit, but user account signatures should never appear in regular article pages — only in talk pages. (See WP:SIGNHERE for more details.) I undid this edit, on the assumption that it was an inadvertent mistake on your part. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is no need to put ~~~~ in your edit summaries. This character sequence does not get expanded into a signature in an edit summary — there wouldn't be any reason for this, since the revision history of a page shows the user and date/time of each change already. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I had to undo your comments here since they effectively altered the readability of someone else's post. Location (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I placed a box around your proposal to make it easier to read from the talk page text around it. (diff) Location (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help.

Hello AMSask,

I noted some work you did over on the talk page for Reactive centrifugal force back in January. I think you might share a similar point of view as I do about that article. I'm trying once and for all to "fix" it. It's currently spouting nonsense and covering it up with vagueness. I need help. Could you take a look at the talk page comments there over the last few days and see if you can back me up a bit?

Montyv (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]