User talk:Flyboy Will

Dam Keeps

I, for one, enjoyed every single one of your dam jokes, and thought your efforts should be recognised ;) Smitz 15:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Dam it, now I have to come up with another one... Ah, never mind. Flyboy Will 07:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vandal

Thank you for going after 172.167.246.185. How they found the page of mine they edited suggests that they are either lucky or know what they are doing. - CobaltBlueTony 03:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was very surprised actually that it worked. What do you know... Anyway, it was my pleasure to help. Flyboy Will 07:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Mooney (blogger)

I agree with almost all your reasoning at the Paul Mooney (blogger) AfD.

However the advantage of an AfD over a speedy is that there's a very visible consensus on the worth of the article - which has already formed, I see, this morning. When this article fails AfD the RfC is closed, those of us watching the article are entitled to reverse the blogger stuff on sight, and the ANON has nowhere to go to re-open the case.

That's my thinking, anyway. Thought it was better to make this comment on your talk page rather than at AfD, though. AndyJones 13:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Osiris

After what you said about Herrut, I wonder what you think of our Osiris, Isis, and life-death-rebirth deity articles. Wesley 05:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Schwebel

Please don't feed the trolls. This page is already getting way out of hand. --InShaneee 05:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE: War on Christmas conduct

Where to begin? I suppose I could point out you're begging the question that is, DO I hold the belief I should be given priority over everyone else? The answer to that is no by the way. the {{inuse}} template message is a courtesy message to reduce a perfectly stupid and avoidable occurance, edit conflicts. As for the talk page condcut, glance at WP:IAR WP:NPA WP:RPA and WP:BOLD for a hint of why I did what I did. Oh, as for why I went and editied before discussing?

Because I made no claims, no contraversial statements, I fixed a great deal of unclear prose. the {{contraversial}} template, and the wiki-philosophy don't suggest you disscuss everything first, this is not encylcopedia by committee afterall.

As for "coming out of nowhere", I've been around this place for a while, I've spearheaded and survived far more contraversial topics than this. I think we'll see that most people agree with how I handled it.--Tznkai 00:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem I see with the arrogance charge is I expect the same and respect the same conduct out of other editors.--Tznkai 00:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biffeche

Hi, I've done a complete rewrite with references and am requesting people who voted to have a look at the new version. Thanks. Dlyons493 Talk 16:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian pharaohs

Hi: most of those articles are just one-liners that I created using the info from the tables provided in the dynastic lists. Even the Iry-Hor article started that way; other people added to it. --FeanorStar7 10:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Seth Ravin

An AfD you participated in is now at deletion review. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katelyn Faber

Could you weigh in at the bottom of the Talk Page for Katelyn Faber regarding the inclusion of an image of her? User:Tufflaw, who unsuccessfully tried to have the entire article deleted back in December 2005 insists on censoring/deleting it for extremely specious reasons, and I've been asked to gather a consensus. Please read the bottom two sections of that page. Thanks. Nightscream 18:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Zbruch Idol Detail.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Zbruch Idol Detail.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Zbruch_Idol_LG.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Zbruch_Idol_LG.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright 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. 11:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for more opinions on AfD

I noticed you shared your opinion on the first Afd, the second AfD is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_proven_conspiracies_%282nd_nomination%29#.5B.5BList_of_proven_conspiracies.5D.5D

Best wishes, Travb (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tunguska Event

It has been some time since this edit, but I have determined that you provided the selected eyewitness reports for Tunguska event from this diff. Another editor has begun blanking that section, claiming that it is inadequately sourced, and I was wondering if per chance you still had what source you obtained them from, so that we may quell this issue and retain the reports in the article. Thank you. Someguy1221 03:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, never mind. Sources have been found :-) Someguy1221 04:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Sayenko and Suprunyuck with Dead Cat.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Sayenko and Suprunyuck with Dead Cat.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or 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. J Milburn (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC) --J Milburn (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dnepropetrovsk maniacs murder videos

Hello, is the courtroom video the source for the second paragraph in this section? I am unable to check because I currently have limited internet access. Thanks, momoricks (make my day) 05:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Dnepropetrovsk maniacs

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Dnepropetrovsk maniacs, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Excessive reliance on foreign language news sources, see talk page

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Raven1977 (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hosting

Do you agree that this lookup shows that the company concerned is based in Rochester, New York?

Also, apologies if you were upset by the deletion template yesterday. It could be seen as an overreaction, but the media would have had a bonanza if Wikipedia had screwed up on this. There are still problems ahead, since the article must remain reliable and suitable to be read by the average person, so it was best to use the picture of the cat with the mosaic effect added.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graah theyoungnewschannel, I was talking about http://whois.domaintools.com/dnepropetrovskmaniacs.com which shows the IP in Culver City CA. Right, ync is where you say it is. It's hosted by Choopa.com, whatever that is, which expressly states in ToS that it won't monitor any site's content. And the murder video by itself, I believe, is not in any way illegal.

And yeah, I'm sure there's still a lot to be done with the article, but I doubt we'll see a lot of mainstream media coverage outside of Russia. The videos and photographs can't be shown on TV out here, and without it the news story is kind of bland. When it's just "guys with foreign names in a foreign country bludgeon foreign people", stories like that barely get a mention. Flyboy Will (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel that this story could hit the big time in the Western media at some point during 2009, mainly because of the video. An important line has been crossed here. Killers have photographed and tape recorded their crimes before (notably in the Moors murders), but this is in a different league. With the benefit of hindsight, something like this was bound to happen sooner or later, since mobile phones and digital cameras are everywhere. Also, it should be pointed out (as the article does) that this video was leaked, presumably by someone with close access to the investigation. This is how the shock sites get most of their material, but this is probably the most extreme example ever.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this news article seem OK as a reliable source? Thanks,--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, doesn't look the most reliable source, but certainly not something I'd dismiss out of hand. They identify the murder victim by name, but I can't find any other sources confirming that it's indeed the guy. The link says the victim is one Sergei Yatzenko, a retired worker disabled by some sort of cancer, who was murdered on the 12th of June, and whose body was found on the 16th. He had been riding his motorcycle. The murderers left it by the side of the road, where it remained for over a day until someone else stole it.

Here's another article about Yatzenko with his photograph: http://www.facts.kiev.ua/archive/2007-08-01/83762/index.html. I tried to erase the video from my mind, so I can't tell for sure if that looks like the victim or not. Flyboy Will (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blik seems to be a tabloid, but the main point of interest is that it names the man in the video as Sergei Yatzenko. It also names the person who carries out the attack as Suprunyuck (uncontroversial unless the court disagrees) and Sayenko behind the camera. Incidentally, people are still asking whether this is a hoax. [1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know, there has to be a "fake" comment on every single video ever posted on the internet. And regarding the court, actually Ukrainian jurisprudence operates differently from what we may be used to out here. First of all, they only have a judge who makes all the decisions, no jury. Secondly, the trial moves in separate phases where the court (i.e. the judge) makes decisions on separate items separately. From what I'm reading, the court already ruled on the murder videos, judging them to be authentic, and agreeing that they show Suprunyuck and Sayenko. So regardless of whether they're convicted, the video is incontestable at this point. A conviction is pretty much guaranteed at this point as well. The only variable is the sentence, especially in Hanzha's case.Flyboy Will (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This news article contains what may be police mugshots of the accused. Also, are there any psychiatric reports on the accused?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen those. I wish they were a bit clearer. I think the mugshots look a bit better here: [2], but with both I think the suspects are better seen in the courtroom photos that are already in the article.

From what I've read, no psychiatric evaluation was conducted. There was only a "brief formal psychological examination" conducted on all three by prosecution, which merely deemed them fit to stand trial. Defense tried to challenge this and requested more complete evaluation, but the judge refused. Defense claims Suprunyuck is insane, but even if that might be the case, he's not insane in the legal sense, i.e. he clearly did know right from wrong at the time of the murders. Definition of insanity in Ukrainian jurisprudence is based on the old Soviet definition, which states that the person must be wholly unaware that his actions are dangerous. One literally needs to be a raving drooling maniac to be legally insane over there. Since the suspects clearly knew their actions would kill their victim, and since they are clearly seen taking care to conceal their crimes afterwards, they are sane from a Ukrainian legal standpoint, and that's all the prosecution and the judge care for. I don't think they much care for psychological profiles, at least not until after the conviction. Flyboy Will (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS Actually, based on the weird shadows on the photos in your link, it looks like they were simply cropped, rotated and retouched from the photo in my link or a similar one. Flyboy Will (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modern legal concepts of insanity can be traced back to the M'Naghten Rules. Serial killers have traditionally had difficulty with claiming insanity under these rules, due to the degree of planning before and after the crimes. Also, the introduction of the article currently states that the killers videotaped many of the murders. A minor point is that a mobile phone camera does not contain tape, and records directly to computer memory, often based on Flash memory . However, the prosecution was able to produce only two videos as evidence, which is not really the same as "many". Is this accurate, or did the killers manage to dispose of other videos before investigators arrived?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The big difference with the ex-Soviet definition is not the concept of right vs wrong, but the concept of danger. It's not that one must not understand that his actions are wrong - it's that one can't even know that his actions are harmful. So this gives prosecution huge leeway in these cases, where if they want to prove the defendant is sane, they pretty much are guaranteed they can.

And regarding the number of videos, I think there's more than two, but I have no idea how many there is total, I haven't seen a number anywhere. But in addition to the two shown in court, there was at least one more a transcript of which was shown to some victim's relative. It was only mentioned in passing in some article, and I don't remember which victim it was. Plus apparently the pregnant woman with the fetus thing was also recorded. So that's at least four. I can't even begin to guess at the total number, or why only two were shown in court. I don't believe any source I've seen addressed either of these issues. Flyboy Will (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This news article may contain useful information, but may also be unsuitable due to the final picture.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This news item has a picture of one of the arrests. In the text of the article, the authorities categorically deny that a fourth person was involved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This news item suggests that the sentencing may be on February 10, although this is in the realms of WP:CRYSTAL.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time, please could you look at some of the recent additions to the article, particularly for a second opinion on the Russian language translations. Thanks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judica-Cordiglia brothers

Your lengthy post on the talk page for the above article is dynamite. (I just put a NPOV tag on the article, BTW...see my comments there.) I think you need to submit some of your research to someone like Jim Oberg or Sven Grahn (both of whom have debunked the brothers' claims at length) and see if it might be able to get a wider audience. StanislavJ (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dnepropetrovsk

To Flyboy Will Hi there. Umm I have never edited or written anything on here, so I hope I haven't messed anything up. Anyways, I just wanted to say that I was reading the discussion for the Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs article, and I was glad you were there to to comment on some of the silly things people were saying (like the conspiracy/hoax theory). I love your style of writing :) And as a Russian, I was happy to see there were many russian sources at the bottom of the page :) I think some other people had a problem with that also. It's completely ridiculous. So yeah, I really felt like adding me two cents on the discussion, but you pretty much had already said what there was to say. So yeah, have a good day and take care :):) from L. 70.70.144.95 (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dnepropetrovsk maniacs

Although you have not been active on Wikipedia for some time, please could you take a look at the material about the Chilean documentary if you get the chance. It is the most significant new development in the case since the verdict in 2009.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Andrei Sidyuck.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Andrei Sidyuck.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. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 05:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs in Court 2.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs in Court 2.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. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 05:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs Arrest.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs Arrest.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. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 05:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs in Court.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs in Court.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. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 05:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Sayenko and Suprunyuck with Dead Cat Mosaic.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sayenko and Suprunyuck with Dead Cat Mosaic.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. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 05:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Igor Sayenko.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Igor Sayenko.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 10:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Kondratenko's Police Sketch.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Kondratenko's Police Sketch.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 05:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Nighttime Killers Recreation 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Nighttime Killers Recreation 1.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 15:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Nighttime Killers Recreation 2.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Nighttime Killers Recreation 2.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 15:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Vladislav Volkovich.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Vladislav Volkovich.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 02:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Vladimir Kondratenko.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Vladimir Kondratenko.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 02:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Sotzialistichna Street.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Sotzialistichna Street.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 02:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Sergei Yatzenko.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Sergei Yatzenko.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 03:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion notices

Please note that Flyboy Will has not made any contributions to Wikipedia since April 2009 so it seems unlikely that he will see or reply to deletion notices.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]