User talk:Getcrunk

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page, SIGN YOUR POSTS (with four tildes: ~~~~),
and use headlines when starting new topics. Thank you.

getcrunk is trying to take a wikibreak and might be back on Wikipedia later. Most likely, however, getcrunk will not be able to keep away from Wikipedia and will probably be making some small edits every once in a while.

Archive: August 2005—February 2006
Archive: February 2006—April 2006
Archive: April 2006—May 2006
Archive: May 2006—July 2006

your edit on music video director

hi, why did you comment out the warning here [1]? A few hours later, the problem user came back and added back his list: [2]. Peter S. 09:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I commented out the warning to comply with Wikipedia's Manual of Style and to avoid self-references. I don't think that it's necessary to have the warning displayed to everybody who reads the article, because it's only for editors. And I think that if that problem user still refuses to discuss his changes, you should open an RfC. — getcrunk what?! 12:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer :-) I can't do a RFC because I can't talk to the person in the first place: He has no wikipedia nickname, has a quick-changing IP (can't reach him on his talk-pages), doesn't read page comments and doesn't know the rules (doesn't read article talk pages etc.). I don't think he's a vandal, we just need to bring him on the right path, which is by talking to him which is the very thing I tried to accomplish by writing this message on the article page. Have you got a different idea how I can reach out and talk to this guy? I think posting this message in plain view until we have first contacted him is the best (yet unconventional) way. Peter S. 12:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, haven't heard from you in a while. How do you respond to my point "rfc won't work cause we cannot talk to the guy in the first place"? Cheers! Peter S. 11:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure; an article RfC could be opened, to deal with article problems and not necessarily this on user that keeps switching IPs. However, I think that problem has ended, so far the user hasn't edited List of music video directors. — getcrunk what?! 13:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he just edited the old article again today: [3]. The fact that he didn't move to the new article shows me that the guy only reads the article with a peripheral vision / doesn't understands what's going on. All the more a reason to contact him directly on the article page, imho. Peter S. 13:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have certainly attempted to talk with him. I'm not sure about what can be done besides simply reverting his edits on sight. A big commented message wouldn't hurt, too. — getcrunk what?! 14:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oprah Winfrey

Thanks for the work you're doing on this article. In the last few days, a few vandals have hit the page with unsourced pics, unsourced and POV text, and continual reverting of good versions of the article. Refer to this discussion for more info, but basically User:Editingoprah and User:Zorklift are the main problems. Please feel free to revert their edits when they say things like "Restoring pretty pictures" and so on. If this continues, I'll look to other admins to indefinetely block them. Thanks. Harr o5 00:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just as I received your message, I made a post at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Oprah_Winfrey_sockpuppets. Happy vandal-fighting! =) — getcrunk what?! 00:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the images, I 100% don't buy the elderly people in resting home story. These guys are trolls looking for a fight - would your grandmother engage in a revert war the first time she used the internet? I'm going to indefinetely block them if and when they re-upload the fair use images. Just giving you the heads up. Harr o5 21:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as the key piece of evidence to support this case, no old lady is writing "you've contributed nothing to this article. Why are you even here?" on their first days at Wikipedia. These guys have gone on long enough. Harr o5 21:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Editingoprah and the other pack of users may be unrelated. Anything is possible, though. I really don't know/can't tell. — getcrunk what?! 00:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the description page at Image:Oprah.PNG, the article's lead image. An anon removed the source here. The claim to fair use is identical to the one used for Image:Lohanspeak.PNG which was on the Main Page a few days ago, so this should now be undisputed. Off topic, maybe consider allowing editing of individual sections on this page? It's a bit annoying having to scroll through the entire 60kb of text to give a message :). Harr o5 00:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see the image issue resolved! I've archived (finally!!) and allowed section editing too. — getcrunk what?! 00:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What personal attack?!

I have looked back through my contributions, and can't see what you're referring to. Todd Bridges 20:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about general incivility. You should be aware of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Georgewiliamherbert_and_Todd_Bridges. — getcrunk what?! 20:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence of that either. As for this bit on the Administrators noticeboard, that's just nonsense. I did not vandalize the Gorilla page, that was ThuranX (and his vandalism was reverted by UtherSRG). There is absolutely no connection between me and those other users, so the "investigation" will turn up nothing. It is ThuranX who should be investigated. I don't know what you're talking about when you mention "general incivility." Could you be more specific? I really don't know what you're talking about. Todd Bridges 00:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. The CheckUser case has identified that you, User:Georgewiliamherbert, and User:Mr. Conky are the same person. (Editing from the same IP) Using sockpuppets isn't tolerated on Wikipedia. — getcrunk what?! 12:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear about your RFA

I would've voted for you if I'd noticed it in time. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. I think I'll hold off on running again for a while; I have JS and that works extremely well. PS: nice username! — getcrunk what?! 12:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never replied to your message apropos of my tendentious, rhetorical RfA question, for which failure I apologize, but I should say that yours was the response for which I was looking–I was largely, if not altogether, in symapthy with your submissions–and that I will be happy, in the future, once more to support you. Joe 21:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding an opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.

That is straight from wiki. What I did to the Ying Yang Twins page was exactly that. Pay special attention to the part that says "is not vadalism". I changed absolutely nothing on the second edit. Did you even bother to look if I did change anything? No, because you called it vandalism again even though it remained the same as your version of the page.

It doesn't fall under the "attention seeking vandalism" either. What I said was clearly an opinion. Which brings us back to my quote above. Where is the vandalism? 72.161.62.57 19:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:VAND#Types_of_vandalism: "Attention-seeking vandalism: Adding insults, using offensive usernames, replacing articles with jokes etc." (emphasis added). Also, please sign your posts with four tildes. — getcrunk what?! 18:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will take note on signing my posts. But quit dodging the subject and talk with me. Your above quote means nothing to me as what I stated on the page was an opinion. It wasn't any of those things mentioned in your quote. It was an opinion. Nothing was changed on the second edit, yet that is "vandalism" as well. Even though I didn't resort to attacking you on your page, you keep deleting my very valid complaint. What gives? 72.161.62.57 19:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did change on the second edit: [4]. Also, it's your opinion that what you wrote was "an opinion". I see it as an insult. — getcrunk what?! 19:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I should have double checked that. It was when I reverted the page back to your page and you came along and reverted it back to the page it was already on and said it was vandalism. Either way, it makes no sense.

While you are here, wiki the word "opinion". You apparently don't know its meaning. Also "bias" would be another good read for you. The only way you can see my opinion as an insult is if you are being bias. Anyone with enough gray matter to not drown in the shower can see that is clearly an opinion. 72.161.62.57 00:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. — getcrunk what?! 01:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:67.165.181.119

This anonymous user doesn't appear to have made any further edits after I placed the first Vw warning on its talk page. Is the blatant template still needed in this case? -- JHunterJ 20:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I didn't realise that the user made no further edits after you placed the warning. Even with that, I think that based on their edits, {{bv}} was a good idea. PS: You may like to check out User:Voice of All/RC/monobook.js to add to your monobook.js file. It adds a whole bunch of nifty vandalism-fighting features! — getcrunk what?! 21:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Template:Good article

hi, i hope you can take part in the deletion review debate for the above metadata template that puts a star on the article's mainpage (you voted in the original deletion debate). the vote is here Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 8 (scroll down for Template:Good Article section). thanks. Zzzzz 00:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oprah socks?

Hmm...if you think something fishy is going on, then I guess send this to WP:RFCU. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been! — getcrunk what?! 02:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)=[reply]

Hi Getcrunk

You added a copyedit tag to the Oprah article but forgot to provide any explanation for doing so on the talk page. You seem like a reasonable person so I didn't want to disrespect you by removing the copyedit tag myself, but if you could remove it yourself or at the very least provide an explanation for the copy edit tag that would be really cool. Editingoprah 00:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA thanks

Hello Getcrunk, and thank you for your cliché support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with an overwhelming final count of (105/2/0). I was very pleased with the outpouring of kind words from the community that has now entrusted me with these tools, from the classroom, the lesson in human psychology and the international resource known as Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Please feel free to leave me plenty of requests, monitor my actions (through the admin desk on my userpage) and, if you find yourself in the mood, listen to some of what I do in real life. In any case, keep up the great work and have a fabulous day. Grand master ka 06:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Redirecting

Can you remove the warning? It was a mistake I wouldn't redirect a page for no reason. Sorry for the mistake. Thanks --So Fresh and So Clean_Wish U Was Me 23:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User page revert

You are very welcome, and many thanks for the very kind award of a medal. Much appreciated. Best, Gwernol 21:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little help?

Hey how are you? I was randomly going through some articles on current singles on here, and came across the "Ain't No Other Man" page. Since you and I have been editing "Call on Me" together, I can really see you know what you are doing. The charts section of the "Ain't No Other Man" page is terrible, I've already removed about 20 non-important charts, but the list just goes on and on, so if you want to just check it out, I know you know which charts are "important" and not. Thanks :) Thankyoubaby 00:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello =) I've trimmed some of the charts on that page. My edit will probably be reverted by an IP soon, so I'll keep the page on my watchlist! — getcrunk what?! 01:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

Hi just came across your suggested merge of Pre-order status and iTunes. However you only added the {{mergeto}} tag. Please remember to add the {{mergefrom}} tag to the target next time. Thanks in advance. AlistairMcMillan 02:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't abuse the new users

I reverted your revert of the Maxim link on Beyoncé Knowles. I noticed that your tagged the user's talk page with spam2, skipping spam1. Take it easier in the future, please. -- JHunterJ 18:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

Hello. Please don't edit others' comments on talk pages and please don't remove them unless you are moving them to an archive page or if they are vandalism. Also, please subst templates on user talk pages. Thanks — getcrunk what?! 15:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you think you are doing? You are not only reverting information which is uncited Original research onto the biographies of LIVING PERSON's you are also removing fact tags from information which is original research. Do you have any understanding of the principles of Wiki policy on living individuals and original research? [5] for example. I have been told by an administrator that this is perfectly acceptable.--I'll bring the food 15:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. I didn't revert your changes to articles because those are acceptable. the {{fact}} template isn't meant to be used on talk pages because they are not articles. — getcrunk what?! 16:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And where on that guideline page does it say that? It doesn't anywhere. Revert my changes back to default.--I'll bring the food 17:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is polite to not edit anybody else's comments on a talk page - by default, I presume we are supposed to take them as personal opinions. If something looks potential deflamatory, reply and ask them to give evidence rather than edit their post. When posting up removed sections, however, such tags do indeed make sense. LinaMishima 17:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for inclusion of material in whistle register category

I'm having problems sorting out that whistle register category. After adding hundreds of fact tags to original research statements as you proposed and removing singers from the category one by one who are not sourced as having the ability (over 100 actually), a user is now rv'ing hundreds of changes [6]. Can you stop this, it is incredibly frustrating to have someone put back hundreds of unsourced statements and original research items on living person's biographies talk pages --I'll bring the food 15:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user doesn't seem to understand that I only reverted his changes to others comments on talk pages. I think it's been cleared up by now. — getcrunk what?! 16:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very glad if it's been cleared up. However, let me be quite clear in case there is any residual problem. Non-negotiable wiki policy is VERIFY. This means that any material has to be referenced by a reliable source. Comments on talk pages are not a reliable source. Any editor has the right to remove any material from an article (or a category) that is not so referenced, if that editor chooses. It is up to the person wanting to include it to provide the reference. If someone reinstates material, knowing that it has been removed because it is not referenced, they are violating wiki policy and may have editor privileges withdrawn by being blocked. In the case of this particular list, this can be taken as a final warning, although one which I hope is unnecessary. Happy editing!

Tyrenius 20:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone talking to me on this page? I didn't edit any articles which Bring the food edited, only the talk pages. From the "non-negotiable" policy: Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Does anyone here bother to investigate anymore?

— getcrunk what?! 22:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you check out our talk pages, you'll see I already asked for confirmation of the point you are making. best just to roll eyes at the overkill in this case, I feel :P LinaMishima 02:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musicians Article guidelines

Because of you interest in th past, you input is welcome here.--Esprit15d 17:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

janet jackson edits

Hi! It looks as if we were both reverting vandalism to the article on Janet Jackson by 165.138.138.211 and I seem to have reversed one of your reverts??? -- Maelor 16:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chart websites

Hello, haven't met you before!!! I would like to know the websites for some of the major music charts like Billboard or UK charts, etc. I'm trying to add in references in the Charts section in Promiscuous (song)! Later I might add in cites in other song articles too! Hope you can help. Thanks. RaNdOm26 17:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox

This case is now closed and the result has been published at the link above.

Eternal Equinox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is placed on Probation and personal attack parole for one year.

Jim62sch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is cautioned to avoid teasing or taunting sensitive users.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 13:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UW

Hi getcrunk,

I see looking at the WikiProject user warnings page, that you are a participant in this project. I have recently started an undertaking to harmonise all user page warnings and templates. For this I would like your assistance. I have listed a number of ideas on the project template page here as a first draft. I fully appreciate that as with most editors and admins, that you are fairly busy. Therefore I am not looking for anyone to carry out the actual work, I am willing to do that myself, with help from a number of other RC Patrollers who have come forward. But what I am looking for is your invaluable input, on the draft ideas and also to suggest other ways you believe we may improve the templates. I do however require the services of a couple of administrators to put into effect some of the new templates, as they are currently protected. Please take 5 mins to look through the new templates page, and both the project and templates talk pages and leave any ideas or suggestions that you may have. Best regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 09:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Carre's Grammar School

A small article, Carre's Grammar School, has been vandalised recently by Antfest and other users. Can something please be done about this.

Jh fireboy I'm listening 15:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Janetjacksonnew.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Janetjacksonnew.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden 18:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to Image:Khandi Alexander - actress.jpg Oden 19:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UW

Hi,

You have put yourself as interested in helping out atWikiProject on user warnings. We are now at a stage where we are creating the new templates and are wondering if you are still interested? If so please visit the overview page and choose a warning type you wish to work on. There is a base template available here, which you can copy and use to get you started. Have a look through the redirects and see what old templates are affected and incorporate them into the the new system. Anyway, any questions please don't hesitate to give me a shout. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 08:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

NOTICE IS GIVEN THAT the scope of WikiProject Ottawa is being debated. Your input is requested. Thank you. GreenJoe 20:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in merging userboxes

Would be interested in merging the follosing userboxes for The Pussycat Dolls: {{User The Pussycat Dolls}} and {{User:Miller17CU94/Userboxes/User PCD}}? Please advise. Chris 14:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carre's Grammar School Vandalism

Carre's Grammar School is constantly being vandalised, most recently by 86.29.193.72. Is there a page where I can add Carre's Grammar School to be regularly checked?

Thanks, Jh fireboy I'm listening 18:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question

Hey, getcrucnk!

I have a question about Wikipedia, and hope you can help me. How do you join wiki projects? I found a couple nice ones I want to be in, but I don't know how to join!

Thanks for your trouble, --"I'm free!" 17:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music

My article on Michael Scott ODonnell is a good one as it gives info on a notable musician. Just as the Johnny Cash article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_cash Thanks --Mso music 03:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UW future?

Hi Getcrunk,

Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as interested at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace template issue. As you have yourself down as interested in this project we thought you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers ^Khukri 10:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming a mod

Crunk, I was wondering how a user ends up becoming a mod. Not that I'm vying for the position you understand, but I can never find any information about it. Thanks. Knowmysecret 10:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rihanna Discography

I need your help with the article "Rihanna Discography". The user IP Adress, 80.108.115.119 keeps on changing the positions of the songs, "Pon de replay", "If it's lovin' that you want" and "SOS" in the Canadian section, to incorrect information/chart positions. The correct chart positions are listed in each individual article for each of the songs but this user won't take any notice of them. "Pon de replay" peaked at #7 in Canada, as stated in its own individual wikipedia article. I have also posted up several notices in the page's talk page but have recieved no reponses. So please if you have any ideas or suggestions as to how u can help me, please let me know. 220.101.48.181 2:25, October 4, 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pig person.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Pig person.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. -Nard 19:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC) -Nard 19:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kylie-Minogue-Light-Years-164329.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kylie-Minogue-Light-Years-164329.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Arabcartoon.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Superbash.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Superbash.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rappingwonders2 (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Janet Jackson - Together Again.ogg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hotproperties.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hotproperties.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 may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Janet Jackson - Nasty.ogg

Thank you for uploading Image:Janet Jackson - Nasty.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faceparty page issue

Hello on the Faceparty artical a anon user is suggesting the UK goverment did a police state action on a single website without refrence. I've contacted my police contacts and they stated this is clearly false. I've asked for refrences, and eventually reverted the edits howerver someone keeps on adding them back. Could you possibly look into this for me?

thanks Mbhmirc (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hot Properties

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Hot Properties, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Kylieprincess.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Kylieprincess.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jay32183 (talk) 08:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

I added your name to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians because unfortunately you haven't edited since October, 2006. Once you return you can go ahead and remove yourself from the list. :) OlEnglish ^(Talk) 23:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAR notice

I have nominated Kylie Minogue for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cirt (talk) 11:25, 20 July 2009 (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) 13:07, 23 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) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Showgirl Princess

The article The Showgirl Princess has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears not to meet notability guidelines

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dajasj (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]