User talk:Matthew R Dunn/Archive 2

Rounding

Actually, we usually do round viewers to two decimal places. Not sure of that editors love of call caps though. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The users are still edit warring though, and that the reason I use three decimals is because it is more accurate. Could you at least tell me why they need to be rounded to just two? I know of no rule favouring either two or three. -- Matthew RD 20:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've always seen them rounded to two. To be honest, this is my first time ever seeing the figures to three. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fringe episodes use three, as does House (season 6). Those are just examples I added where I was not responsible for placing three digits. -- Matthew RD 20:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the numbers on the Mentalist have always been rounded and I can say that for all the shows I watch and look here for episode info (not necessarily edit), I have never seen three. I don't watch House nor Fringe. I was about to make a list of rounded to two, but as I looked around at the pages for the shows on the major networks, they were all rounded so I would be here for ages. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly rather keep them at two I mean rounding off isn't that hard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gino will (talk • contribs) 20:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your edit history, the only edit warring seems to be with you and the editor above. From my point of view, it seems as if he is trying to round them to be consistent with other articles, but you don't see a reason to round and decide to revert/undo. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I don't see why it should have three numbers when u can easily round it off. (Gino) 20:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Gino

So far, all I hear is "they should be two." I have not been given a proper reason as to why. I see that it is not a bad idea to round them off, but a big problem I face is that while numbers, for example like 12.121 round up to 12.12, and 12.128 round up to 12.13, what about 12.125? I do remember math classes at school where the 5s round up than down, but still think they are a bit tricky to deal with if the source indicates three decimals rather than two. We could go on an on in my talk page, or we can start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, so we could get a more clear consensus. -- Matthew RD 20:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12.125 would be 12.13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gino will (talk • contribs) 20:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, a discussion would be great. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, will one of u start the discussion? Gino Harmon 21:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the reason 5 is rounded up is because it makes it even. 5 numbers round down (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) and 5 round up (5, 6, 7, 8, 9). Also while Gino will's edits might be in good faith, the user has been borderline edit warring over this. Gino will is also suspected of sock-puppetry for using both a user name and an IP to edit simultaneously on the same articles over this. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gino will.) _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 17:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't a sockpuppet unless you are using more than one account to circumvent a block, deceptively express your opinion in a discussion, etc. There is some guideline/policy page somewhere (I remember reading, but can't find) where it states that editors are free to edit with their ip whenever they please regardless of whether they have an account or not. Looking at the edit summaries, there was no deception intended. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logging in and out repeatedly and editing the same articles as this user has done is sock-puppetry under first and last point of inappropriate uses of alternative accounts. IP's count as accounts. Using more than one account for editing is sock-puppetry whether you where blocked before or not. But please comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gino will. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellence in Broadcasting GAN

Your concerns have been addressed. Gage (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita

Hello, just to let you know, before you revert in future, I rounded the number to 3.00 because that's what we do here. Not because I wanted to. Jayy008 (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source stated 2.96 million, not 3.00 million. What do you mean by "that's what we do here?" Please point to the policy or guideline to back up that statement you just made. -- Matthew RD 23:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~::I will find it for you now. Jayy008 (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Thinking about it, I don't know if I'm right. I was told this by a user, who always pointed me to guidelines when he made edits, so I didn't guestion it when he told me that you round figures here. But now, the user is blocked permanently. So, I've posted a comment on somebody else page asking if that's what we actually do. Jayy008 (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong with the numbers I used, here's an explanation from a user who deals with this a lot Jayy008 (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Smoke and Mirrors Spooks.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Smoke and Mirrors Spooks.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Tom Quinn (Spooks)

The article Tom Quinn (Spooks) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Tom Quinn (Spooks) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you follow the advice of the GA Reviewer, and take the article to peer review before going for GAN again. The GA Reviewer in particular is one I have come across to have sound judgment, so I would advise against contesting the review itself. -- Cirt (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Smoke and Mirrors (Spooks)

On 21 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Smoke and Mirrors (Spooks), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Pavor Nocturnus (Sanctuary)

On 4 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pavor Nocturnus (Sanctuary), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Cirt (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctuary Season 3

I'd really advise to explain yourself before you revert any pages. You can check the discussion page I've left a message there. Nasirakd (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did explain myself in the revert. I believe I said "Much of the recent additions can be all found in the episodes section; no need to repeat it" in the edit summary. -- Matthew RD 16:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could you explain why you only did it for the third season? -- Matthew RD 16:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third Season has been my focus for a while now and I haven't watched all the episodes from other seasons that's why. I appreciate you keeping the premise and cast. Next time please let me know first before you make a big revert. Nasirakd (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Series 8, Episode 8 (Spooks) GAN

Just to let you know that I have completed the GA review for Series 8, Episode 8 (Spooks) and placed it on hold pending one minor verifiability issue; see Talk:Series 8, Episode 8 (Spooks)/GA1 for details. –MuZemike 06:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strike Back (TV series)

Hi. Have you read this re Strike Back (TV series)? Funnily enough, I was only wondering the other day how Sky were going to play the second series now Richard Armitage is getting his hobbit feet on. Bradley0110 (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but having just read it, it does make me wonder... Also it looks like he isn't coming back on Spooks. -- Matthew RD 20:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was made pretty clear that Lucas is a piece of abstract street art by now! Bradley0110 (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for New Allegiances

On 19 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article New Allegiances, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Tip-Off

On 25 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Tip-Off, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that actor Richard Armitage was subjected to waterboarding while filming Spooks episode "The Tip-Off"? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for On the Brink

On 28 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article On the Brink, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Spooks episode "On the Brink" is based on the financial crisis of the bank Northern Rock? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for helping with Did you know Victuallers (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Day One (Torchwood)

Hi, just to let you know that I've reviewed this article and passed it. Well done. :) - JuneGloom Talk 22:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Matthew RD 22:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GAN backlog elimination

Hello, I don't know if you realised, but "quick fails" aren't counted in the totals for the GAN backlog elimination drive (it's mentioned on the project page itself in the "Running total" section). --Beloved Freak 20:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the heads up. -- Matthew RD 20:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. :) --Beloved Freak 21:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The International (film) GA Review

Hi Matthew,

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I've dealt with the points you raised. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's More Than One of Everything reassessment

Hi there. I just wanted to inform you that another user has taken it into her head that There's More Than One of Everything is not ready for GA status. Her "suggestions" are completely ridiculous, and do nothing to improve the article or Wikipedia. For instance, she has complained that Roberto Orci is called a co-creator, when this is not directly in the source provided. She even complained that I said the film Star Trek was from 2009, when the source failed to say the exact year! Basically, she wants EVERY tiny, common bit of information cited, regardless of their importance or obviousness. I've never experienced a reassessment before (and with her kind of comments, I hope I never have to again...) I've already asked two other users to step in and take a look at her reassessment, but if it's not too much trouble, would you mind taking a look also? Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 17:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split Loyalties GAN review

I have reviewed and left comments. Please take a look at them. Thanks! Ruby2010 talk 19:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also just passed The Tip-Off. Good work, Ruby2010 talk 01:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also have reviewed Nuclear Strike and left a few minor comments. Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 16:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gilly Roach

Hey just had a quick glance over your comments before I start, I noticed the reception section you wanted some background to whom they lost to. I used to include that, but most other GA reviews asked for it to be removed because they felt it wasn't relevant. Then we kind of discouraged adding it to soap opera articles. If you still want me to add that though, I would try.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 16:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per your review of Gilly Roach, I have made additional remarks on the article's review page. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you busy? Would you consider doing another GA review I've nominated? (The last one was good and in depth and helped it improve by miles.)Rain the 1 ^BAM 21:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll find time. -- Matthew RD 21:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, the article in question is Ruby Buckton :) I'm just keen I guess.Rain the 1 ^BAM 22:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm reviewing another article at the moment, so I'll get started with Ruby Buxton as soon as I can. -- Matthew RD 22:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed all of those for you and left a note on Ruby's GA1. :)Rain the 1 ^BAM 01:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Many GA reviewers just say "copyedit needed", whereas you give plenty of copy edit suggestions. It is great to see you do not mind giving your time up and doing a thorough check of the prose. Great attention to detail when it comes to editing.Rain the 1 ^BAM 01:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Episode list headers

I saw you changed the headers at the Castle episode list and met with resistance, a similar issue has now come up at List of White Collar episodes, if you wouldn't mind pitching in at Talk:List of White Collar episodes#Use of No and .23. Thanks. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 23:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fifteen (song)

I have answered back to the comments for the GA review. Thank you for reviewing the project. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 04:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for reviewing "Fifteen" and doing such a great job at it. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 06:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime :) -- Matthew RD 16:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Mad Dogs (TV series)

The article Mad Dogs (TV series) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mad Dogs (TV series) for eventual comments about the article. Well done! GRAPPLE X 19:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Matthew RD 21:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on Spooks Characters

Hi, Matthew--

I'm a real newcomer to participating in Wikipedia, and a relative newcomer to the show Spooks/MI5. I have a question I hope you can answer. I've been making edits to some articles on former Spooks characters, like Zafar Younis and Danny Hunter, trying to move them away from "in-universe" style and add references. But once this is done, who decides when or if the tags (?) at the top of an article--I mean those banners that name its problems--get removed? Likewise with categorizing an article as a stub, which seems pretty inconsistent (the articles on Zafar Younis and Danny Hunter are called stubs, but not the one on Helen Flynn, which is shorter).

I'm asking you since you seem to have done a lot of work on Spooks articles; will also try a couple of other folks who seem to have been making edits on character articles in the past year or so.

Thanks, Anmilgan (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I'm the right person you should be asking, but I'll try to answer the best way I can. In a way, it is up to you. "In-universe" means that the article contains nothing more than plot information, so if you find information that does not relate to plot, but behind-the-scenes (development or reception) by about a decent-sized paragraph or two, then you can probably remove the tags yourselves. I suggest you go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television and/or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), there are a group of users dedicated to this kind of thing, so somebody will probably provide you with a better answer. -- Matthew RD 23:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the swift reply! Yep, I've had another answer pretty much to the same effect, that it's okay to go ahead and remove these tags when they no longer seem to apply. By the way, while doing a bit of clean-up on the Adam Carter article this afternoon (which I originally turned to simply to see how to add references to specific Spooks episodes--it's easy to get sucked in!), I guess I got a little carried away, deleting links I thought might not be that necessary. I see you've since reinstated some of them. Fair enough; maybe now the amount of linkage is at a happy medium. Thanks again, Anmilgan (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Maya Lahan

The article Maya Lahan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Maya Lahan for eventual comments about the article. Well done! GRAPPLE X 12:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Spooks (series 7)

The article Spooks (series 7) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Spooks (series 7) for eventual comments about the article. Well done! GRAPPLE X 23:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia Books

Honestly, I'm not sure if I'm doing it right myself, because all I ever do is go into a previously-made book, copy-and-paste the code and then change the text around. If you go in Book:Homicide: Life on the Street (season 2) for example, just copy and paste the code, then change the show/episode titles and the image, I think you'd be all set. If it's wrong, I'm sure somebody will fix it some time during the GTC process. Hope that helps! — Hun ter Ka hn 15:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over There FA

I am planning on nominating Over There (Fringe) as FA eventually. I still have other major edits to make on it, but I thought this would be a good opportunity to have other editors (especially Fringe fans) look the article over before it is ruthlessly dissected by the FA reviewers. Would you mind taking a peak? Feel free to be bold and edit what you think will help. Thanks! :) Ruby2010 talk 03:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. -- Matthew RD 12:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your participation in the March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive

On behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, we would like to take the time and thank you for your contributions made as part of the March 2011 Good articles backlog elimination drive. Awards and barnstars will go out shortly for those who have reviewed a certain number of articles.

During the backlog drive, in the month of March 2011,

522 GA nominations were undertaken.
423 GA nominations passed.
72 GA nominations failed.
27 GA nominations were on hold.

We started the GA backlog elimination drive with 378 GA nominations remaining, with 291 that were not reviewed at all. By 2:00, April 1, 2011, the backlog was at 171 GA nominations, with 100 that were left unreviewed.

At the start of the drive, the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 101 days (Andrei Kirilenko (politician), at 20 November 2010, reviewed and passed 1 March 2011); at the end of the drive the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 39 days (Gery Chico, at 24 February 2011, still yet to be reviewed as of this posting).

While we did not achieve the objective of getting the backlog of outstanding GA nominations down to below 50, we reduced the GA backlog by over half. The GA reviews also seemed to be of a higher quality and have consistently led, to say the least, to marginal improvements to those articles (although there were significant improvements to many, even on the some of the nominations that were failed).

If you would like to comment on the drive itself and maybe even make suggestions on how to improve the next one, please make a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/March 2011#Feedback. Another GA backlog elimination drive is being planned for later this year, tentatively for September or October 2011. Also, if you have any comments or remarks on how to improve the Good article process in general, Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles can always use some feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles.

Again, on behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, thank you for making the March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive a success.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 21:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August (Fringe)

Thanks for expanding the plot. I was meaning to do it one of these days... I'll start preparing it for GA status. Which image looks best for the article? This or this? Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 04:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I just happened to be watching the episode on DVD when I notice the Wikipedia page on the article's plot was rather lacking, so I expanded it while fresh on my mind. As for the image choice, I'd choose the first one, as I feel it seems to more relevant to see another Observer acting weird (kidnapping someone). -- Matthew RD 14:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive award

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For reviewing 10 or more Good article nominations during this past March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive, I hereby award you The Tireless Contributor Barnstar. Nice work! –MuZemike 17:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And apologies for accidentally posting it your actual user page. My fault. –MuZemike 17:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Nuclear Strike Spooks.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Nuclear Strike Spooks.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator 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. ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 14:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:The Tip-Off Spooks.png

Thank you for uploading File:The Tip-Off Spooks.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator 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. ╟─Treasury Tag►constablewick─╢ 14:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Smoke and Mirrors Spooks.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Smoke and Mirrors Spooks.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator 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. ╟─Treasury Tag►Tellers' wands─╢ 14:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Fata Morgana Sanc S1E03.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Fata Morgana Sanc S1E03.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator 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. ╟─Treasury Tag►Regent─╢ 14:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:End of Nights Sanctuary S2E01.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:End of Nights Sanctuary S2E01.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator 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. ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 14:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Homecoming LOST S1E15.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Homecoming LOST S1E15.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator 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. ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 14:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:First Strike SGA S3E20.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:First Strike SGA S3E20.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator 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. ╟─Treasury Tag►Regent─╢ 14:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Lifeline SGA S4E02.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Lifeline SGA S4E02.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator 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. ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 14:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Adrift SGA S4E01.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Adrift SGA S4E01.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator 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. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 14:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:He That Believeth in Me BSG S4E01.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:He That Believeth in Me BSG S4E01.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator 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. ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 14:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Manhunt PB S2E01.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Manhunt PB S2E01.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator 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. ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 14:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Cell Test PB S1E03.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Cell Test PB S1E03.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator 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. ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 14:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:The Daedalus Variations SGA S5E06.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:The Daedalus Variations SGA S5E06.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator 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. ╟─Treasury Tag►estoppel─╢ 14:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Allen PB S1E02.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Allen PB S1E02.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator 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. ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 14:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Lahan

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maya Lahan

Just as soon as you point me towards a Wikipedia policy which says that GAs are immune from PROD and/or AfD, I will gladly withdraw my nomination. ╟─Treasury Tag►Regent─╢ 17:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't because it seems you memorised just about every single policy on this site. -- Matthew RD 18:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think, "Sorry, I made a mistake," may be the phrase you were grasping for? ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 18:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please just leave me alone? -- Matthew RD 18:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Matthew R Dunn. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maya Lahan.
Message added 18:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

There's no need to message me on this, I got the discussion page on my watchlist. -- Matthew RD 18:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]