User talk:Alvez3

Sources required

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to The Unknown War (Documentary). Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 04:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:N1 booster lp.gif

Thanks for uploading File:N1 booster lp.gif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:N1 rollout.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:N1 rollout.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:N-1 Liftoff 1974.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:N-1 Liftoff 1974.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:2n1-on-pad.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:2n1-on-pad.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:C Zond07 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:C Zond07 1.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello!

I noticed you're kind of new to Wikipedia so I just wanted to say "Welcome!" I'm glad to see another contributor interested in Russian cosmonautics, and I especially want to thank you for uploading that very nice picture of Georgy Beregovoy! I worked on that article and I'm so pleased to see it improved. Good luck on WP and I hope to see you around more often! SteveStrummer (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem with edit

Hey Alvez, just an FYI. I've reverted your edit to Yuri Gagarin (see diff) as you added an inappropriate link and changed the insignia size. Fallen Astronaut should not be linked to from the "deceased" status on any astronaut, since it is a sculpture commemorating astronauts killed in the line of duty. These are two totally separate things. You also enlarged the insignia to 100px, while the standard for all astronaut/cosmonaut articles is 30px. I also reverted your edit to the William B. Lenoir article, as the change you made was in an incorrect format for the template, and removed the age portion, something that is appropriate for a deceased individual. Take care! — Huntster (t @ c) 08:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem with your edit of my edit

1. Regarding "deceased" status of an astronaut astronaut - I would rather agree with you - the link shouldn't be there, I first detected it on Pavel Belyaev page and decided if it is allowed there it would be appropriate on Gagarin's page too. 2. Your bringing back the insignia size to 30px renders in again almost invisible, so I doubt the practicality of strict adherence to template parameters. (By the way - are you a moderator?) 3. Your accusation of my changing the template is incorrect. In fact I attempted to restore the CORRECT template. If you check my contributions in Lenoir, Gagarin and a number of other entries deceased cosmonauts - you will notice I was correcting the mistake that applies to a large number of entries on deceased cosmonauts and astronauts by reverting the erroneous line date_death it to the original template Infobox:Astronaut standard death_date, since that mistake makes the date of death invisible on the actual page. 4. Your idea of appropriateness is your personal view which has nothing to do with encyclopedic knowledge. The age at which a person dies is a relevant piece of information pertinent to a person's biography, it is used throughout Wikipedia in most other templates, mentioning it has nothing unethical about it. Infobox templates are not written in stone and can be corrected for the purposes of providing more accurate information. Given that, rather than correcting my 'mistakes' as you see them and deleting the age at which an astronaut died I suggest you correct the actual mistake in the template which prevents readers from seeing an astronaut's date of death :).

I'm rather confused, so I'll take this point by point:

1) I figured as much, but I wanted to nip this in the bud.

2) The insignias are kept small to keep the infobox from becoming too big (which always seems to be an issue, as more and more info tends to get crammed in). It's mostly an aesthetic issue. You might want to raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human spaceflight to see what others think...I don't really care, I just like some degree of uniformity between articles. And yes, I'm an admin on en.wiki, though that is not relevant with regards to article content and style issues. :)

3) I really don't understand your reply on this one. Please see this diff for your edit to Lenoir...you removed the date and age template, and replaced it with a malformed template that only displays date of death ("{{Death date|26|08|2010}}" should be "{{Death date|2010|08|26}}"). That was the only issue...I just pointed it out so you wouldn't switch parameters on accident again. As for changing "date_death" to "death_date", there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I'm surprised a bot hadn't already gone around and fixed those instances.

4) This ties to above, and is simply incorrect. I am not criticising the addition of the age at death variable; precisely the opposite. The edit you made to Lenoir removed the age of death, and I restored it with my edit. There is no problem with the template, just the particular edit to Lenoir that you made. If you still don't understand what I'm talking about, do let me know.

Does this satisfy the issue? — Huntster (t @ c) 06:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me try to clear your confusion. My whole 'quest' through the pages of deceased astronauts started with the malformed format (as you call it) on Lenoir's page which prevented a reader from seeing the date of death altogether, the date wasn't showing at all (not only the age was missing - the whole line wasn't there). Turned out the problem was common to all pages of dead cosmonauts and astronauts. So I started looking for a reason, that is why I played around importing date_of_death formats from other templates that appeared functional. The reason I discovered was this - on most of those editing pages there was the same error - instead of death_date (correct entry) the line reads date_death, which prevents it from being visible on resulting page altogether (you want an example go see the current Alan Shepard's page). I corrected it, apparently ignoring the rest of the line, which I had manipulated previously, which in turn lead to showing the date but not showing the age at death.
So, what I am trying to say - you made a wrong conclusion assuming I had purposely removed the age code, which I didn't, what I did (from the standpoint of a random Wikipedia reader who doesn't go into editing) - was to enable the line with the date of death to be visible. In other words you think the line was there and I removed the age, what happened in reality - the line wasn't there at all, I made it visible, albeit without the age (as I did for at least 15 other cosmonauts' pages and as you can see I only made a mistake once entering the wrong format on Lenoir's page, all others do show the age).
While you was under that erroneous assumption about my corrections you wrote this: I also reverted your edit to the William B. Lenoir article, as the change you made was in an incorrect format for the template, and removed the age portion, something that is appropriate for a deceased individual. I didn't know you were mistaken about my actions, so I interpreted this portion of your sentence: as the change you made was in an incorrect format for the template as referring to my good CORRECTION from date_death to death_date. Therefore omitting this portion, the rest of your phrase reads like this: I also reverted your edit to the William B. Lenoir article, ..., and removed the age portion, something that is appropriate for a deceased individual. In other words I read it as though you reverted my edit and removed the age portion since "that was appropriate for a deceased individual". That is why I understood your whole post as saying that you did the age code removal yourself... Ouff! I hope you understand now what I was and I am trying to say and that the air has been cleared.
Summarizing all the above - I painstakingly corrected over 15 dead astronauts' pages so far, in the process making an unrelated mistake which you happened to notice, overlooking the bigger issue. Since you mention there is an autobot in place which was supposed to easily correct everything automatically I suggest you do something about it, since your knowledge of Wikipedia process is far superior that mine. :)--Alvez3 (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I've written a reply to the above five times so far, and keep erasing it because I cannot seem to get my point across. So I'll simply say this: thank you for your work fixing the broken infoboxes, and just try to be mindful of parameter order in the death date templates in the future. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:N1 booster lp.gif

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:N1 booster lp.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file 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. --MGA73 (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:2n1-on-pad.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:2n1-on-pad.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, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with my explanation pertaining to another file of N1 group here and here. It is valid for all Soviet photographic images of Soviet spacecraft related to Lunar programs N-1 and Soyuz 7K-L1 programs. Actually it is valid for most Soviet period photos related to Soviet space program that have been made public only after the collapse of the Soviet Union.--Alvez3 (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ρωμανία, Rhōmanía, Romania

Based on Iblardi's correction, on "Google Books" (which is useful for finding many scholarly sources), a strict search for "Βασιλεία Ρωμαίων" appears to return 738 results, and "Ρωμανία" seems to return 2200 results, this suggests that "Ρωμανία" appears in more sources than "Βασιλεία Ρωμαίων", but both names should be mentioned. And, "Romania" appears in Latin texts at least since the 4th century AD, "The Roman world was styled in later Greek and Latin simply Rhomania and Romania. That word first crops up in literature in the 4th century.", and the following book even claims that "From as early as the 1st century AD the empire's residents called it "Romania"". You can also find the use of Latin "Romania", in the Getica(you can find its text here) by Jordanes (who wrote it in Latin at Constantinople during the 6th century). Cody7777777 (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to leave "Romania" there, and also for fixing its font. The following book also claims that "Within a few decades (during the 3rd century), people began to refer to the entire empire less often (in Latin) as "Imperium Romanorum" (Domain of the Romans) and more often as "Romania " (Romanland), and the following website states that "Romania, (was) already the name of the Empire in Late Antiquity. There is also "The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, Volume 3" (by Alexander P. Kazhdan, published by the Oxford University Press, ISBN 0195046528, 9780195046526), which states on page 1805, "Romania, Latin term that appeared in the 4th C. to designate the Roman Empire" (but regrettably, "Google Books" does not currently offer a preview for this book, but this source was also mentioned in an earlier discussion by Cplakidas, who is a Greek user). I'm indeed Romanian, but the sources I posted earlier were not Romanian (or at least, the names of their authors do not look Romanian to me). Cody7777777 (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

For another readily accessible source in Latin, see Orosius, Hist. adv. pag. 3.20.11: "sed dicat quisquam: isti hostes Romaniae sunt"[1] and 7.43.5 (vulgariter, but nonetheless): "ut ... Romanum omne solum Gothorum imperium et faceret et uocaret essetque, ut uulgariter loquar, Gothia quod Romania fuisset..."[2]. Iblardi (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits on Byzantine Empire

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Please note that under the policy, edit-warring includes ongoing edit-warring over a longer period not just 3RR. You have made a bold edit to change a long-standing passage in Byzantine Empire. Please respect WP:BRD by answering my points on the Talk page rather than reverting. The passage has been in existence for nearly two years. It needs consensus to change. I will not revert again, but if you revert my change I will refer this to administrators for a decision. DeCausa (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Decausa's 'warning' suppressed as null and void since not only this member has no authority to give such warnings, he persistently violates WP:BRD while giving 'warning' to others.--Alvez3 (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually Alvez3, you are the one who has violated BRD - the cycle is Bold (your edit) Revert (the other chap's edit) Discuss (not, revert the other chap). You have been edit warring, and whether or not the other chap has also been is irrelevant at this point. Further edit warring will result in a block, please establish consensus on the talk page of the article.

Also, you are not a new editor, so you should be aware of Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. This post [3] was a personal attack - repeat it and you are likely to be blocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Your warning is noted. Also please note on your side that my edit was a minor one and it was clearly an attempt to render a controversial wording neutral. I didn't believe it was worthy of starting a new discussion section especially when the only opposing party showed no willingness to really participate in a discussion but rather dismissed my edits as 'it doesn't flow as good', 'leave it alone', 'no consensus', etc. As to the personal attacks - no such attacks were meant as they probably sounded, I just pointed out that user DeCausa's discussion practices based on trying to create an illusion of authority and thereby position him-(her-)self above the opponent are unacceptable. That said - to comply with rules I will start a new section on the appropriate discussion page.--Alvez3 (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to start a new section. I had done that and my post is awaiting your response, so I don't understand your comment about unwillingness to discuss. The situation came about because you didn't respond to my request to discuss, not vice versa. As to "illusion of authority", I have no idea what you are talking about - and it's probably not worth pursuing either. Also, can you please self-revert back to the original version. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Notification

Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you have been involved. DeCausa (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a request to user DeCausa - please refrain from leaving any further 'warnings', 'notifications' and/or 'informational(?) notes' on my discussion page as they clearly look like an attempt to influence an ongoing dispute by demonstrating authority where there is none. Please address all further issues in question through an appropriate discussion page.--Alvez3 (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to explain, I am required to leave the above message here by the rules of AN/I when I made the complaint. As to the 3RR warning above, you cannot bring a complaint to the 3RR admin notice board until you have given that warning (which was what I originally intended to do). You can just delete them if you don't like how they look. DeCausa (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for further personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Alvez3 - threatening to report someone because they placed a talkback template on your page is OTT. In order to be unblocked, please indicate that you understand that you need to communicate better, that if someone reverts you the answer is to discuss, and that you cannot simply order everyone off your talkpage.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you blocked this account for the first time merely because he said he would report an editor's behavior? Mindbunny (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Your last post on my Talk Page

I see you are now blocked. The problem is that you're just a bit clueless on Wikipedia policies eg you thought that the notices I put on your Talk page was me trying to "show authority where there is none". You didn't seem to realise that to make a report to administrators it is compulsory to post those notices! I suggest you familiarize yourself with things a bit more before you launch into such controversial stances. Good places to start are WP:BRD, WP:CIVIL and WP:consensus. In answer to your request that I should discuss, the discussion thread which I opened 4 days ago to discuss this is still there, and still without your contribution. DeCausa (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact is, Decausa does constantly play this game, repeating the same pattern with different editors on different articles. Start edit war, accuse the other editor of violating BRD, run to ANI. Grow up. Mindbunny (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I can block you for trolling if you like. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You could block me for saying what I think. You could block yourself for being on a powertrip. You're an admin. You have the power; I don't. I fully expect you to abuse it. Mindbunny (talk) 05:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I just like to point out to the reviewing administrator that regardless of the rights or wrongs of the block for the talkback incident, after Alvez3 was given the warning by Elen of the Roads for the personal attack on me he posted a supposed apology on my talk page which included a random allegation that I had recruited someone else "to edit war" on my behalf (and he even said in the post that he had no reasons to make the allegation!). To me, that's a further personal attack with an explicit admission that it was baseless. DeCausa (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use my talk page for your complaints to the administrator, go to the appropriate board.--Alvez3 (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Alvez3, it is perfectly acceptable - indeed it is the correct place - to post notes for the reviewing administrator on the talkpage of the blocked person. You were unblocked on the basis that you would communicate in correct Wikipedia style, so be aware that you do not own your talkpage, it is part of Wikipedia and intended for other editors to communicate with you, so please stop telling people not to post here.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Alvez3, it seems to me you didn't "tell people not to post here," you expressed a preference, beginning with: "Please... You are certainly entitled to politely inform other editors of your preference. It was also a perfectly reasonable request, as Elen would know if she read her own comment: the Talk page is "intended for other editors to communicate with you". That's different from editors talking about you to admins. It seems to me that Elen has acquired a dislike somewhere along the way, and is prone to abuse of power. A standard pattern in any community with elitist (admin) and peon (us) hierarchies. Mindbunny (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Administrator, I regret to inform you that from where I stand you sound like you have taken sides. In my eyes it undermines your position as an impartial arbiter and reflects upon your reputation. Overall in my view your handling of the matter has been so far lacklustre at best. You practically admitted that your decision to block me was made on impulse (you initially put a wrong reason as grounds for the block). It seems you are concentrated on watching me while turning a blind eye on how I am being treated. When one of the accusers calls me an 'unfortunate fella' and you choose to ignore it, am I correct to assume that I can also call my opponents 'unfortunate fellas' or you as a watchdog will block me for another 'personal attack'? I think your last remark is absolutely unwarranted. "Please stop telling people not to post here"? I was not telling I was asking and very politely for that matter, as I do not want my talk page to be turned into an incoherent pile rather than than what Wikipedia creators intended it to be. I think your popping up like that and commenting a minor post of mine looks like another impulsive decision unworthy or an administrator, and also comes dangerously close to what may be interpreted as open bias and prejudice. I kindly ask to get off my back - you really need not be there, I am not such a loose cannon that scrutiny of every little post of mine would be justified. I perceive such excessively close 'guidance' as pressure, and I will act accordingly if I feel your actions contradict your status of an administrator. This is not a threat - it's a statement of my position and my intentions if such treatment continues.--Alvez3 (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You know, I'm beginning to think unblocking you was a bad decision on my part. Stop telling people not to post on the talkpage assigned to this user account. Wikipedia is not Facebook, people have got to be able to communicate with you. Yes I am watching you - this is what happens with editors who get reported at ANI and get blocked. Admins tend to have them on their watchlists. Anyone can watchlist your talkpage. Calm down, or you are likely to end up back at the Administrator's noticeboards, and another administrator is likely to start watching you as well. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Why telling someone to “calm down” isn’t such a great idea. Mindbunny (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, Elen, I was opposing to the fact that my talk page was used as ANI by another user to tell on me, that's all, and I cannot find any Wikipedia rules that disallow doing so. And I am calm, while you for some reason prefer to use threats of shutting me down again as a means of communication. By requesting to unblock me I have undertaken to be civil, polite, 'act in a more collegial manner' and I adhere and will adhere to that, but I am also entitled to my opinion and as long as it doesn't violate the rules I will post it whenever I feel it is warranted. As to the administrators' right to watching me - I am fully aware of that. There's a difference though between watching and controlling. --Alvez3 (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Alvez3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Apparently I was blocked as a result of a misunderstanding due a browser problem. I never threatened another user, I did in fact notify him of an intention to file a complaint but certainly not because he put a talkback note on my page, initially I simply didn't see that note. All I saw was a new empty section named Byzantine Empire. I requested the other user not to edit my talk page without a reason and deleted it. Shortly after I refreshed the browser and saw the empty section reappear despite deletion (may have been a cached copy). It was at this point that I mentioned a possible administrator involvement. To summarize - initially on my side it looked like another user repeatedly and needlessly created an empty section on my talk page. Only some time later while reviewing the edits I discovered that the other user did in fact put the talkback template on my page. --Alvez3 (talk) 05:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Alvez3, I have unblocked you on the basis of the above, and because you now seem to be communicating in a more collegial manner. Please continue to do so, discuss changes if you are reverted, and make no further accusations regarding the motives of other editors, and I hope we can all go forward in good faith from this point. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Vladimir-komarov.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Vladimir-komarov.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file 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. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Beregovoy.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Beregovoy.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file 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. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Voskhod2crew.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Voskhod2crew.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file 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. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:GPN-2002-Leonov spacewalk.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GPN-2002-Leonov spacewalk.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file 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. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Zond7-capsule.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Zond7-capsule.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file 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. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Proton Zond Launch.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Proton Zond Launch.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file 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. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Proton Zond rollout.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Proton Zond rollout.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file 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. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Proton-Zond2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Proton-Zond2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file 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. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Zond07 Earthrise.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Zond07 Earthrise.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file 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. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of spaceflight records, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fruit fly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Proton-Zond2.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Proton-Zond2.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, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:UnknownWar.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:UnknownWar.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)