User talk:BigrTex/2008

Re: TSQ

The three images that you wrote about on my talk page actually refers to the same structure. Given the tags on the images, unless you get the consent of the uploaders, I think the images should stay. Nevertheless, neither of the three drawings are "good" skeletal representations of the molecule. The one in use is under-simplified, while the unused ones used the pseudo-element notation "Me" for -CH3, which is uncommon. --Deryck C. 14:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oz covers

What is wrong with the rational of these many covers? I thought book covers fell underneath fair use. It says it all in the tag. Please clarify your rationale. —JonMoore 22:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it said these things TWO YEARS AGO when the images were uploaded. I don't understand how one is supposed to keep up with such things if the rules are constantly shifting. Really, it is BS like this that makes me want to contribute less and less to Wikipedia. —JonMoore 11:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

FoxTrot book cover image

You recently left a message on my talk page stating that a FoxTrot book cover image which I uploaded a year ago is now orphaned. However, I find the reason the image was orphaned was because you removed it (and all other cover images) from List of FoxTrot books.

As regards points 3a and 8 of the Non-free content criteria, they seem to indicate that I could possibly create an article for each individual FoxTrot book, and use a single non-free image (i.e. a book cover) for each article to represent the item being discussed. However, in many cases it is better to combine short stubs into one list, as per WP:WINAD. Hence instead of 35 individual stub articles, we have a single list of FoxTrot books which is a more cohesive representation of the same collection of information. And yet the list is not allowed to use non-free media in the same manner as the individual articles it would replace? Well, perhaps this is a discussion better suited for the WP:NFCC discussion page... -- wacko2 19:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose carbon dioxide as this week's WP:ACID winner

Spamsara 22:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:P7150390.JPG

Yes, you may delete it. Image:P7150390.JPG is not great.. Thank you.

---

Mlaurenti 8:35, 5 July 2007.

Hmm... I'll keep that in mind for the future. Thank you for the tip.

Mlaurenti 12:21, 5 July 2007.

Fair Use of Images

I recently logged onto Wikipedia to find that my images were tagged for not having fair use. They do have fair use justification and it is in hidden text under all the summaries.

Inner City Blues 00:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Logistics_management_magazine_cover.gif

I'm trying to write a fair use rationale for this image but the description of what the rationale has to say is very ambiguous. This image is fair use. I used the text box from the fair use page and I tried to fill it in as best I could. Please tell me if this works or what specifically needs to be mentioned to help it. I also removed the template you added just because it said to remove it if a rationale was provided. I provided what I think constitutes a rationale, but if it is not good enough, I am willing to work to get the right one in there. Thanks for all your help Sean Montgomery 14:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks great, thank you again for all your help. Sean Montgomery

Image Tagging

Hi, can you please stop tagging my new images as "No fair use rationale" as this is quite clearly incorrect. They are fair use as they are single covers. Thank you, BigDom 17:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Cabin Boy

Fair use material added. _A

Fair use rationale help needed

Hi. Thanks for alerting me to the additional info required to keep Image:Freiheit_scrn.gif. I utilized the template and filled in some of the information -- I just wanted to make sure it was sufficient, or whether I need to include more. Thanks Alcarillo 20:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Should be taken care of. Let me know if I need anything more. [[Image:WFEpetthefish.jpg]

Image:MysteryoftheWhisper.jpg

The size of the text disclaimer that seems to be needed with the FairUse police is approaching that that drug manufacturers ... May case heatburn, drowziness, or spontaneous explosion. -- Xinit 21:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Bleh...

Sorry, that was from my ancient days of Wikipediing. I learned fair use later and forgot that was an image I uploaded. I'll get something quick. Thanks for reminding me.Sbloemeke 22:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Galaga '88 Orphaned images

Hi there. I added {{db-author}} to each of the images that you notified me about on my Talk page. These images can be deleted right now - I have no issue with getting rid of them. The images were for showing detailed information about Galaga '88 that Wikiproject Video Games later deemed unencyclopedic. The images could/should be transferred to StrategyWiki, but I can upload them there at any time.

Affected images:

• Image:Galaga88_Dimension_1_Host.gif
• Image:Galaga88_Dimension_2_Host.gif
• Image:Galaga88_Dimension_3_Host.gif
• Image:Galaga88_Dimension_4_Host.gif
• Image:Galaga88_Dimension_5_Host.gif
• Image:Galaga88_Dimension_3_Host_Stage_27.gif
• Image:Galaga88_Dimension_5_Host_Stage_27.gif

Thanks. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Images

Hey BigrTex. I have noticed that you have been moving Illinois maps over to Commons and leaving the categories and project tags along. I must say that I am glad you are doing that. I was wondering, if I got you a list of images would you be able to move those also over to Commons and leave their cats and projects tags here alone? Thanks for your assistance.--Kranar drogin 02:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will put the tags on them a little later. Yeah, most of these city located maps will eventually be gone. The new ones with the geobox are just so much better to use. So if I orphan some, should I just tag them as orphans from now on and tag to move to Commons if they aren't there already?--Kranar drogin 02:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I will notify you from now on of the images I orphan (maps anyways). Actually, I have been changing things up over there in Commons. You will find categories on each county that has maps, ie Category:Maps of Ogle County, Illinois etc. Cause there is going to be a large influx of maps soon (I hope) for the counties.--Kranar drogin 21:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Add as I go along:

• Image:ILMap-doton-Quincy.PNG - Adams County, Illinois On Commons

Thanks!--Kranar drogin 04:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Images

Stop the automated messages I get it now. I'll sort it out tomorrow, OK? --Howard the Duck 15:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that instead of hunting down logos which are always in fair use and impossible to find free replacement, can't you go find some fairly used photos of living people, that's easier to find replacements and tag like there's no tomorrow? --Howard the Duck 18:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images

Hi mate - you've tagged some album cover images that I've uploaded requesting 'fair use rationale' but I dom't know what I'm expected to put. Cavie78 20:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair

You tagged Image:Snejnaya Koroleva (SMF).jpg for deletion for lack of fair use rationale. When you do so, you should leave notice everywhere the image is used and on the talk page of the original uploader. You can do so using WP:TWINKLE or by hand. Thanks. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Beşiktaş logo.

Hello BigrTex, you had sent a message to me about the Image:Besiktas_hqfl_logo.png. I put a fair use rationale tag to page, and also decreased its width to 300 px. Can you have a look? Is it proper now?? Thanks :) molosztash 00:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

About the Girlfriends - Season 2 DVD

I did update the image so that it now has a reason to why it’s Fair Use Rationale. I just want to make sure it’s acceptable under Winikpedia's guidelines so I won't be banned again, and for the final time. The speedy deletion will remain until conformation that it's correct by message ;-).

Thanks Ceddy06 19:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - what is portion used?

Image:Revisioned TR logo.png

Hi. Is that ok now?... Klow 08:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:1974_Topps_102_Bill_Greif_Washington_and_San_Diego.png

Thanks for catching that, it's appreciated ;) -- Editor at Large • talk 19:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

CF ATLANTE

Hello..

I would like to know why did you erase the page, redirecting the CF Atlante link to Club de Futbol Atlante. I do believe that CF Atlante is much more complete in the information, and I do believe that the Club de Futbol Atlante is the one that should be merged to CF Atlante...

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.134.6.34 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 19 July 2007

Image tagging

You would be doing the project a much better service if, instead of blindly tagging fair-use images without a fair-use rationale for deletion, you instead determined the most logical rationale and added that to the image description page as required. Please note that many of the images I uploaded were uploaded prior to the fair-use rationale requirement. Thanks. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Image

Hi. I don't understand the issue in Image:Wisła_Płock.png.jpg. IMO it has everything needed: rationale, source and copyright information. However it's categorized as having no fair use rationale. --Brand спойт 16:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) --Brand спойт 17:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of image...

Mate... WHAT ARE YOU DOING? DO you have ANY idea how long it took to find to appropriate images for all of these album covers, and you're simply slapping on the "fair use" of them and having them deleted? The summary wasn't good enough? How can that be? They're album covers, how can I summaries that any better? The licensing of the use of that was enough, but I actually explained where I could about them. What else can be added? You can't just undo all that hard work so easily, it's not a 'fair use' of your given e-powers, or whatever the term is. At least discuss it with me if you're taking off like close to 20 albums so I can sort out what's missing, which from the reason you've given, doesn't feel like anything. Discuss it. Or so help me, I'll take this further however I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harish101 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 20 July 2007

Hey man, thanks for the info. I apologise for my outburst, but you know... that was a lot of images that took a lot of time for me to upload. I won't lie, your useful links went right over my head. I'm not very wiki-literate in reading so many pages about how to better the summary. What did I basically need to add to the summary? Harish101 11:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:24Day2.jpg

Fair rationale removed for this one; on 2nd look it doesn't even appear to be a legit poster. SkierRMH 17:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of image Image:Fcporto.jpg

Sorry, didn't know that I couldn't use it on my user page. Marco Alfarrobinha {chat}_{contributions} 18:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Club_Deportivo_Magallanes_logo.png

I have tagged Image:Club_Deportivo_Magallanes_logo.png 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. BigrTex 20:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Question for you: Why did you tag this image for deletion instead of just writing a rationale for it? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Aris Thessalonikis.png

I hope it's ok now. Kapnisma ? 20:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Robin moore.jpg

I received permission from the owner of this image for use on Wikipedia, and did my best to provide a detailed rationale when I uploaded it. Would you mind taking a look at the image's upload page and letting me know if what I have is sufficient? Or whether I need to include more information? Thanks. Alcarillo 15:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging.

Your efforts in tagging images are appreciated, but it's suggested in the interest of good faith and tidy pages, that you group 'batches' of images together, and remove relevant entries once the issue is resolved :) Sfan00 IMG 17:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Not offical policy, just a suggestion.

I also find it slightly disturbing that some have made anatomically impossible suggestions abour your efforts :( Sfan00 IMG 20:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Soccer Logos - Fair Use

You tagged a couple of dozen soccer team logos I uploaded as not having a fair use rationale. I'm not sure exactly why you did that - when I uploaded them, I tagged them as being "logos", which was one of the fair use rationale drop down options on the upload page. Was that not enough? Is it not completely obvious why they're there? Just wondering. --JonBroxton 20:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I am prtty sure

that it is okay to post record covers in articles. Image:Shadows2.jpg - and others, were posted almost 3 years ago using the standards of the day. If they no longer meet your needs feel free to update them. You know what they need. Do it. Carptrash 14:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Paoklogo.svg

Hello BigrTex. I added a rationale per the licensing found at the other club logos, and removed the notice. I hope this is OK, although I really don't think a rationale is that necessary for logos. Cheers! - Badseed 06:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Faron.jpeg,

fair use updated on that image The fair use should be reflective of the image in question; fooled me initially - my home computer is a cheap old low res small screen & it's difficult sometimes to make out details on the images :( Maybe I can get the wikipedia foundation to buy me a new high res 36" plasma display?! :) SkierRMH 17:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:RonstadtTime.jpg

Hi BigrTex, seems you've upset an editor by tagging this image for review. I received this message when I restored the tag you placed. I'm not overly concerned about the legitimacy of the image, but I thought it was wrong for someone to just remove your tag without discussing it, or even leaving an edit summary explaining why. I'll leave it with you. Cheers Rossrs 13:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ronstadt TIME

Per the above noted message as referenced by Rossrs, the issue pertaining to Linda Rosntadt TIME magazine cover on her bio site, this photo has been resolved as to the photos noteworthiness and stays, and if you had read the fair use rationale you see that there is no questions as to its fair use. These is a widely used photograph and can be found on the internet and because you are arguing its legal rights and copyright infringement, the fair use rationale according to the copyright law expalins it, so drop it! Don't you read the fair use rationale on any photos, i'm a copyright lawyer, i know and because this info is by law "The fair use of a copyrighted work...for purposes such as criticism, comment,...scholarship...is not an infringement of copyright." and because the criticsm on this pic has already been deemed to be noteworthy to keep (read the discussion comments on this photo) this photo by law reflects the intent of section 107 of the United States Copyright Act of 1976 and stays. Also, This image was nominated for deletion on 2007 July 6. The result of a discussion was keep. Therefore because of its noteworthiness, because it was deemed keep and falls within the copyright requirements of section 107, it requires no tag. It appears that your tagging is arbritrary, have a problem with her politics, background, fame, etc? I find this a lot with this artist so I have to be vigilant. Who knows what your INTENT is. No matter, this photo adheres to legal and fair use scrutiny. If you want to legally (fair use tag) challenge this then go ahead, it will open up a lot of fun other challenges. And to just site Wiki policy will not change the facts. (Sharkentile 20:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)).

the person who has worked in the Carlos Andrés Pérez page has done a good job. i wonder who the person is.

My photos

Can you help me with my problem. It's about this resizing crap that Fuzzy510 did. I hate what he did to my old uploads. He says they are fair use, I say they are fair use but I also say they are too small to be DVD covers. These DVD covers links are on my talk page. Thank you.--Stco23 21:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

CSD AutoReason Updated

Attention spamlist! I've just updated CSD AutoReason to account for the new image deletion page. If you'd just hard refresh (Ctrl+F5 in most browsers), you'll get the new version and be on your way. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Image:Borderline.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Image:Borderline.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 05:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:TinaTurnerSimplyTheBest.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TinaTurnerSimplyTheBest.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 02:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Tight rope.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tight rope.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 05:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

ACID Atom

The article Atom, which you voted for the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive on August 1, and was removed on September 11, because on one got around to choosing it as the winner, has been renominated and needs votes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zginder (talk • contribs) 14:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Better source request for Image:HardWorkinMan.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HardWorkinMan.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. OsamaK (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick Question

How do you add a Semi-protection to an article? Or do I need to speak to a particular person about this?
Thanks - Ceddy 06 04:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:IMG is kicking back up with a big project for June

You listed yourself as a member of WikiProject Image Monitoring Group. A new project is being planned for June 2008 called "Wikipedia Image Cleanup Month" and we could use your help. Check out the talk page at WT:IMG and see the goals and to-dos we need help with (which you can help decide in this early stage). We would love your help and this positive effort should increase and educate Wikipedia about images which will have long lasting effects. MECU≈talk 14:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

cdeboghorski plymouth.jpg

I am quite sorry for the inconvinience, it was an older photo of the trunk lid of a Plymouth Neon. I zoomed in, cropped the logo and recolored the pixels to make it look more official. When I uploaded the photo I must not of selected a copyright tag. If I changed the copy right status of the photo I will not make the same mistake again. However if you feel there would be another incident or you or anyone else for that matter would protest I will not reupload the said photo. I only ask for I do not wish to cause trouble. Also, please forgive me for my tardiness in response. If you would be so kind as to respond promtly, I would be happy to reupload the photo A.S.A.P. Thank you. Cdeboghorski (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Harrishawk37.jpg

I assumed USFWS images were in the public domain, but since I've had my own images deleted before now, I don't expect this one to survive - delete away Jimfbleak (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your very civil reply. I hadn't realised it wasn't being used, so deletable as orphan anyway presumably. Go ahead and delete, if anyone needs it they can always search the USFWS website and upload it under the current licensing requirements. Jimfbleak (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Image Deletion

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia and I was at Wikipedia commons and a user named Diamond Joe Quimby must have taken my image [1] from my Facebook account I uploaded to my page. It was not a free image and I searched for Wikipedia Administrators and I picked yours at random to delete this image if you can because I uploaded a new free image [2] I self-made THANKS IF you can get to it. Colorado Lover (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image:Zappa_???.ogg files listed for deletion

Hi! All five Frank Zappa related *.ogg files listed for deletion have been uploaded in shorter versions. Cheers! --HJensen, talk 15:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. The three remaining clips have now been further shortened to be in accordance with policy. Regards, --HJensen, talk 16:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read notices on talk pages!

I wish that you and your ilk would read before spamming my talk page. I don't care if you want to delete my audio files, images, text, whatever. There is a big STOP SIGN at the top of my page that asks you NOT to post delete messages on my page. But you and the other file monitors who spend there time trying to get stuff removed instead of adding to Wikipedia keep posting notices on my page.

Please, please, please read the notices on the talk pages of people you are posting to. There are many of us who, much as you do, have messages that we would like others to see before they fill our pages with junk. I see your "opt out" link, but that is no excuse for not having the courtesy to read the requests of the person you are posting to.

Please feel free to delete anything of mine you find on Wikipedia. The way that the rules lawyers have screwed things down, all you are going to be left with are pictures of rocks and audio files of wind blowing. Enjoy.

Epolk (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

EBM samples

Hi, just noticed you removed the samples from the EBM article as you said they violated WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8. I disagree.

Those rules state:

3.1. Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.

3.2. Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the Image: namespace.

8. Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.

And as a lot of people obviously still don't understand what EBM is after listening to these and add bands like VNV Nation to the list I think more of them, not less are needed. It was only short samples, so 3.2 could obviously not have been violated. Describing music by only using text is obviously not good enough. So samples were needed and WP:NFCC#8 was not violated.

However, I could probably contact some EBM bands and get their permission to have samples of them on wikipedia. But how should I do that? Obviously can't post their signatures on the page. It probably wouldn't be the same samples then though.

--Dalen (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Jim Payne

Saw you were dabbing Jim Payne; it's worth noting that there is a jazz musician named Jim Payne who is not the folk singer, so some of the music dabs may be incorrect (e.g. HighNote Records). This is the jazz Payne. Chubbles (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll go back and double check those dabs. I hope the jazz musician is not from Newfoundland. ~ BigrTex 20:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes to both Alexander and Murphy. Chubbles (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

9/13/08

Hello, BigrTex! Can you please semi-protect AHLU's user page? He can't stand those vandals.

MHLU (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Image tagged

I see that. I didn't know this is tagged for deletion. You may delete it. AHLU (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:BrandNewManB.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:BrandNewManB.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. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocking request: 67.40.178.154

This user has been vandalizing the Super Why! page making nonsensical edits, incorrect cast members and other abusive nonsense. The cast listed as per Voicechasers.com and the IMDB is the correct one. This person needs to be stopped and the page semi-protected. NoseNuggets (talk) 4:04 PM US EDT Sept 28 2008.

Skokiaan Free Use Rationale

I do not understand your message on my talk page that I have to add a fair use rationale for the image in the Skokiaan article.

I did include a fair use rationale under the heading "Non-free use media rationale – non-free album cover for Skokiaan," as evident from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Skokiaanlabel.JPG.

DocDee (talk)

Help Fellow Texan On Deletion Review

Hi BigrTex,

As a Texan who is involved in photos on Wiki, I'm asking for your help in helping a fellow Texan, photographer and author, on what appears to be an improper deletion. Here is the deletion review [3] in question. I admire your straight forwardness and experience as an admin and how you understand the adminship on Wiki better than most. The original article in question was "speedy deleted" after being listed here on Wikipedia for over two years and having endured an AfD before. The admin in question deleted links from the original article then used his "speedy delete" powers to delete it. When questioned, the article went before a 2nd AfD, at which time the admin in question allowed the article to be judged, sans his link deletion of credible sources from the original state of the article. When the sources were added during the 2nd AfD, the admin would delete them and eventually block them, including a link on the Univesity of Texas, San Antonio's list of notable alumni [4] on Wikipedia (Wikipedia approved pages should be a credible source, especially from the University of Texas school system) where the notability of the person (article in question) was clearly established by the university. You appear very knowledgeable in these matters and do not appear to be the type described in this article, [5] and because of this, we request your help in overturning an improper deletion. Thank you for your time. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)