User talk:Perfectblue97

This user is a proud member of WikiProject Paranormal, and thus strives to provide a fair and representative view of entries relating to Parapsychology, Ufology, Cryptozoology, Urban myths/legends and related topics. Both in science and in popular belief.

Old Conversations

Sandbox

Award from Dynamo_ace

For your enchancments on the Clow Cards article, i Dynamo_ace give you the Tireless contributor Barnstar!

Keep up the good work!-Dynamo_ace Talk

Award from Jumping cheese

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I hereby award Perfectblue97 the Tireless Contributor Barnstar for all the hard work in expanding the Kim Possible pages. Keep it up! Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 06:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Cookie for you

Whiskey for you

Re : American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena

As requested. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 18:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

Sorry for not noticing earlier, but thanxs for adding extremely detailed and valid fair use rational for all the KP pics! You definitely saved a bunch from deletion. Imagine if all of the KP pics were deleted (shudder...dodged that bullet!). Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 06:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on the shego pics. --=CJK= 18:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Cookie for you

Parapsychology is now a Featured Article

		The Paranormal Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this barnstar for your having worked hard to help me get Parapsychology to FA status. Congratulations. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TIMETRACE

Hello, I wonder if you could, while editing diverse articles, check if they have sources in their history or chronology (or when they mention any important date. If they don't, could you please place inline {{Timefact}} calls where those citations to sources are missing, this will display ^{[chronology citation needed]}. If you find an article with too many inline calls to place or totally lacking needed history of the subject, you can instead place {{histrefm}} at the footnotes of the article's main page, just before Categories. If you could add this to your routines, it will most certainly help WP:TIMETRACE. Thank you for your help. Daoken 06:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EVP

Why don't you look at the EVP article when you get a chance, see what you think needs to be done. Things are a lot more peaceful nowadays. We just had a lot of trouble with the placement of parapsychology on the FA page- so that could bear watching also. Re EVP, if Dreadstar gets enough votes and becomes an admin, I'm thinking of asking him to kind of lead us through a re-write on the EVP article, as he is someone I trust to be neutral and not bias things agains the paranormal. ——Martin^phi_{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm going to put some space between myself and that page. I will however support the admin nomination. - perfectblue 10:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martinphi, I thought you were against totally rewriting the EVP article? I've offered several times to organize a rewrite of the article yet you never took me up on the offer. Now you want Dreadstar to "lead" a rewrite of it? I wonder why that is. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Nealparr might be a better choice, the way things are seen. But we're now discussing it on your talk page and the EVP talk page. ——Martin^phi_{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not discuss it here then. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, and this is my own opinion, EVP is primarily notable because of unvalidated beliefs that are held about it (eg, people believe X but don't have scientific proof of it) therefore the page should discuss these beliefs in depth and should explore the reasons for these beliefs. For example, if X million people believe a hypothesis put forward in some book or other, then that book and its hypothesis are clearly notable and therefore should be included, even if the author has no scientific backing or background. Sadly, pseudoskeptics will never accept that an unscientific source or belief is appropriate for Wikipedia, even if it is clearly notable enough. Therefore I feel that the EVP article is unlikely to representative of the true body of opinion and feeling about EVP in the real world. - perfectblue 07:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article could use expansion of what goes on in pop culture, certainly, but I don't think it is unfair to EVP or to skepticism at the present. ——Martin^phi_{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When last I looked, it could have done with some more text dedicated to

Exactly what popular culture believes about EVP
The pseudoscience that has developed around it
Its place in the wider pantheon of paranormal beliefs

perfectblue 08:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly what I think, and what I've heard others say as well. If you know enough, why don't you come over and write it up? I'm going to nominate it for GA status tomorrow (and also re-do the skepticism section), and we'll see what happens. ——Martin^phi_{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 08:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of people have attempted to use the fact that I supported the inclusion of popular myth/culture in this page against me in order to try and make me seem like a user with a pro-bad science bias, so I'm going to stay out of the fray on this one. I also can't cite my own interviews and conclusions about people and the experiments carried out by them on the page, so It's a bit frustrating for me (Well I can, but it would go down badly. I'm more interested in the cultural aspects of belief and in the history of research/researchers). - perfectblue 09:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadstar RfA

Click there to open your card! → → →

Perfectblue,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 55 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to vote in my nomination. I'm a new admin, so if you have any suggestions feel free to let me know. I would like to give a special shout out to Fang Aili, Phaedriel, and Anonymous Dissident, for their co-nominations. Thank you all!

Dreadstar

This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor's modification of Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

Thanks for your support! I took the easy way out of thanking everyone by ~~stealing~~ borrowing someone else's card design...but know that I sincerely appreciate your support and confidence in me! If I haven't told you before, I just love your Wikipe-Tan avatar...she's...well...perfect..! Dreadstar † 08:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SatyrBot

SatyrBot's offline for a little while. It was malfunctioning, and rather than fix it, I'm finishing up the complete re-write that I've been working on for a while. I should have the maintenance function back online next week. Sorry for the inconvenience! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I know - I've been missing all that the bot was doing for WP:LGBT, too. I've got most of the basic coding done and have been working on it's daily activities. I should have it up and working either by the end of the week or early next week. Sorry for the delay!!! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Perfectblue97! I've been working to improve SatyrBot's functioning, and I wanted to ask you two things:

Has the bot been working okay on the WikiProject's maintenance reports within the past week? Did you notice it's work [[User:SatyrBot/Paranormal|today], and did it do alright?
Would you take a look at the offering page I've put together to "advertise" to other WikiProjects?

Many thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chitauri

I really have no idea of protocol or couth as far contacting others on Wikipedia, but I want to re-ignite the Chitauri page! I have restarted the talk page with my reasons. Please contribute!

Stabbycat 06:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chitauri

Hi. :) Per your request at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Content review, I have userfied the material from Chitauri to User:Perfectblue97/Chitauri so that you may examine it to see if it can be reasonably incorporated into a subarticle. Please note that if you do choose to use this material, it will have to be written in your own words to avoid infringing the copyright of the editors who contributed to the deleted article. Please make your considerations soon. As the header at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Content review indicates, "keeping deleted content in your userspace if you have no immediate intention of using it for encyclopaedic purposes is frowned on, as Wikipedia is not a free web host. If kept too long, the page may be nominated for deletion at miscellany for deletion". When you have finished with it, please mark it with {{db-userreq}} so that it can be deleted. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your note at my talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EVP pic

Hi PB,

On this pic [1], could you change the comment/caption? It's being questioned as OR. Thanks, ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar! (-= I will take your advice on the pic. I didn't know they were different under OR. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

talk:Chitauri

I reviewed the discussion there isnt anything about improving the article only a comment about its deleteion and a complaint about red links to which I've redirected the page. There was also recommendation to got to WP:DRV it you want the article restored. I noticed you've had the article restored to user space, when you think its ready for returning to mainspace drop me a note I'll review it, and comment at WP:DRV. Gnan garra 01:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts to Kim Possible Episodes

I have reverted your spate of recent reverts. I understand you feel that these were not part of consensus, but please consult WP:CON as well as the multiple instances where this issue has been raised at WP:AN/I and such redirects confirmed as appropriate per our guidelines governing notability, Episode articles and fictional topics. If you are planning on bringing these episodes up to the standard as elucidated at these various policy and guideline pages, I warmly welcome such an effort, and suggest that you consult WP:NOT which explains why plot summaries are not appropriate for Wikipedia and WP:TRIVIA which will explain why trivia sections are strongly discouraged. Additionally, you will need to assert real-world, out-of-universe notability for these articles, backed up by independent, third-party, reliable sources (see WP:RS). Sorry for all the acronyms & underlining, but it is important that content comply with our policies and guidelines that have developed over time. These are wikipedia WP:CONSENSUS (and do please read that). Consensus allows this site to function, despite diverse editors and points of view. Finally, I would note that if your principal interest in this TV series is to provide plot summaries, character development and trivia, you will be far better off to invest your time and efforts at a wikia (www.wikia.com), where such contributions are not only welcomed, but warmly encouraged. Thanks and happy editing. Eusebeus 23:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SatyrBot & Paranormal

Hi, Perfectblue97! SatyrBot is running daily reports for WP:Paranormal. I seem to have goofed on the settings, though, and it's putting them in its own userspace! I've changed that setting so that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Paranormal/To do list short and Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/To do list full will update tonight. Sorry about that! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is everything working okay? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF! Ghostlight MERGED AGAIN !!

Who the fucking hell had the idea to MERGE Ghostlight into Will-o'-the-wisp - AGAIN. I thought this was resolved. 65.163.115.114 (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was told I'd find the article by others. Now I have to tell them that someone (seen the History section) thinks that "Ghostlight" is not a worthy article, in spite of the evidence, incl. police evidence. 65.163.115.114 (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Wanaweep mascot 1.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Wanaweep mascot 1.png. 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) 19:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Wanaweep mascot 2.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Wanaweep mascot 2.png. 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) 19:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intentionally ironic

Given the entirety of your edit history, your comment opposing the merger of Will 'o the wisp and Ghost light seems to be intentionally ironic. Do you have a serious opposition to the merger? Ante lan ^talk 01:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectblue, if I were you I'd report him for this, or at least give him a {{Warning|}}, regular or no. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lan What, exactly, are you talking about? I'm concerned that a literary subject is being merged with a paranormal subject. Will 'o the wisp is clearly and undeniably a topic in Western folklore that refers to several specific stories phenomona, whereas ghost lights is paranormal terminology used to refer to multiple unrelated phenomona with no single cause or cultural origin. - perfectblue (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got some sources for that. Because SA does have some sources that, I think, make it out to be the same thing. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want sources to say that Will o' the whisp is folklore rather than modern paranormal urban myth? Sorry, but you've got to be joking, right? I thought that this was basic Halloween/tales around the campfire, kind of stuff? I guess you might be too modern to be into that stuff. More into PSPs and MTV than American folk history?

Still, you might want to take a look at "The Ignis Fatuus, Its Character and Legendary Origin" by William Wells Newell in V17#64 of The Journal of American Folklore? It outlines the traditional folklore origins of will o the wisp from a third party perspective.

As for having a source say that they are the same, well, this is partly true, but as I have previously said, SA merged them backwards. Will o the wisp is a kind of ghost light, but ghost lights aren't a kind of will o the wisp. The latter refers only to folklore, not to UFO, not to parapsychology, or ghost hunting, and not to modern urban myths. The merge might have stood up to scrutiny if Will o the wisp redirected, but not the other way around.

Of course, I still believe that the two should be kept separate. Merging an literary topic with a paranormal topic is bad precedent, especially when one is backed by well known folk tales and the other is basically spook spotting. Imagine if I were to merge the page on crop circles with the page on grain, or the entry on gravity with a page in fringe beliefs about anti-gravity? Do you see where I'm coming from? - perfectblue (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you. We just can't do anything about anything without sources. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, SA's own source could potentially provide the WP:V necessary to turn the entry upside down (or, from our perspective, the right way up). I haven't checked them out in detail yet, but unless they say that ghost lights are a subset of Ignis Fatuus folklore, what they are actually saying is that Ignis Fatuus folklore is part of the wider myth of ghost lights (thus Ignis Fatuus the child and ghost light is the parent). That alone would be enough to reverse the redirect and to have Will o' the wisp instated as a subsection on the ghost light page.

For me, this would be a better solution to the current issue. It would remove any suggestion that what are basically local ghost stories where part of an academically accepted topic like folklore and it would also help to prevent POV creep that ghost lights were real by people using source about folklore as if they were historically accurate.

I'm at a loss to say why SA might want to try to imply what basically amounts to spook stories out as being part of a mainstream topic, doing so would be rather out of character. It's not even as if ghost lights are part of parapsychology, in fact they're barely even part of scientific skepticism. I don't even consider them to be paranormal in the strictest sense as they're often not enough to most of them to debunk without having to resort to "I didn't see it, so it doesn't exist". They're mostly just modern urban myths.

perfectblue (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film

Do you think the discussion and RfC on What the Bleep Do We Know!? should be mentioned on the Wikiproject:Paranormal page? It was canvassed out to all the scientific, skeptic and fringe projects and boards...even tho it's a film and not a scientific article. Just checking. Dreadstar † 00:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked this against Wiki-regs on canvasing and I haven't actually seen the film so can't give an authoritative answer right now. That page was recently the subject of an Arbcom enforcement against two of the users involved in the RFC but canvasing wasn't mentioned. Either the admin weren't aware of it or didn't consider that it was a canvasing violation. You could raise the issue with the Admin if it concerns you, particularly as it wasn't evenly done, but I can't advise you on whether or not any regs were broken without reading up further.

If you think that this warrants a mention on the project page and think that this falls within accepted practices I won't revert your edits. - perfectblue (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, actually the canvassing wasn't really my concern. It was really about who should be notified about the RfC...and I wasn't sure if WP:Proj:Paranormal should have been notified or not. Canvssing isn't necessarily bad, "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion". Dreadstar † 09:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't actually watched the film, but as I understand it, it is supposed to be a documentary discussing science and popular beliefs through a fictional narrative. If this is correct, and if this discussion covers sufficient project areas, then the RFC should be mentioned on the project page. It's your call, as I have said I haven't seen the film so I shouldn't really be making any calls based on its contents. - perfectblue (talk) 09:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melon heads

Thanks for your contributions to the Melon heads debate. On a side note, since you're interested in the paranormal, you might want to check out the folklore section of Hanging Hills, an article I recently updated. Happy New Year!--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response left

Left a response to you: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal#Paranormal edits Be well, --Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SatyrBot & Paranormal (ii)

The full "to-do" list is now a transclusion of the several sub-lists. If you take a look at the code, you'll see that the full list is pulling in the several pages:

-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [2]. --Maniwar (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist

He announced that he was leaving the project and asked that his user and talk pages be deleted. I honoured the request under the right to vanish. So, as far as I know, he's not using any accounts at all now. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you do see any evidence that he's evading an arb comm ruling, let me know. But my impression was he was just really frustrated with Wikipedia, and didn't want to edit here anymore. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I see (I watchlist pretty well all pages I delete). As far as I'm aware, it's perfectly acceptable for an unvanished user to have a deleted user page (see User:JzG - or, rather, don't, since his user page is deleted), but I've resolved to have nothing more to do with deletions of this user's pages. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, that's definitely the case. The account was never deleted, only the userpage, so he would have had to log into the same account in order to edit under that name. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hello. You may have seen that some Wikipedia articles lack sources to given dates, timelines and chronologies.
If you feel that you could like to help in making all articles more reliable and well sourced in this regard, we would like to encourage you to use, as part of your daily editing and when {{fact}} is not enough for requesting clearly and specifically a citation or source for dates, timeline or chronology, the following inline tag:

{{Timefact}} displays ^{{chronology source needed}} for requesting timelines, dates and chronology sources. Click here for more information

At WP Timeline Tracer, we thank you for using these tools and for helping to make Wikipedia articles more accurate and reliable.

Daoken 10:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Digital bra/bikini

I have nominated Digital bra/bikini, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital bra/bikini. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Perfectblue97/shadow1

User:Perfectblue97/shadow1, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Perfectblue97/shadow1 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Perfectblue97/shadow1 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help!!!!

I have been trying to do some work to the UFO article. I saw your edits and actually much prefer the way you wanted to start the article. The way it is now is much too focused on percentages of cases identified. Some of that is my fault but given the alternate start which leaps straight into the stats I feel my edits are good ones. Nevertheless, I support your introduction and would prefer to see it reinstated. (The current introduction might make part of a good subsection about %ages identified, but it is no good as the introduction to the UFO article.) At the moment though there are so many editors, many seem to be one editor, making changes that there is no point working on the article at all until we have a stable version because all the work is down the drain if the article flips to the other alternative. Is there anything we can do to put a hold on things to try to find the best way forward. At the moment it is madness in there.

I also posted this to the paranormal page but since you were the editor who made what I think is the best start to the article I thought I would post this here too. WakeUpPoindexter (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Scientist article about William R. Corliss

Hi. I see that you added a ref to a New Scientist article to William R. Corliss. I'm just curious, do you currently have access to that article? Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 21:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Young kim2.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Young kim2.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:KPRecapSITPast.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:KPRecapSITPast.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:FutureKimPossible.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:FutureKimPossible.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:The conquers.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:The conquers.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sneerandsnarl.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sneerandsnarl.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Attempt to Delete Donna Eden

You made a comment the first time someone attempted to delete Donna Eden. Someone is trying again to delete it. If you want to comment again, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Eden 2. --Mbilitatu (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem

Thanks for your uploads. You've indicated that the following images are being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why they meet Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page an image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Terraserver1.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Terraserver1.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:Paranormallogo.JPG

A tag has been placed on Image:Paranormallogo.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [3], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Paranormallogo.JPG|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

Hello, Perfectblue97. Based on the templates on your talk page, I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. Article Rescue Members are not necessarily inclusionists, all wikipedians are warmly welcome to join.~~~~

Orphaned non-free media (File:Scottmaruna.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Scottmaruna.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Triffid 3.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Triffid 3.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article not deleted

Perfectblue, I occasionally conduct a Google search for "AA-EVP." Interestingly, your sandbox article on the AA-EVP ranks around 13 and I see at that you are getting an average of around 8-10 hits a month.

I gather you preserved the article that was deleted. The problem is that it is still available to the public. If it was still an article, I would be insisting on a reason to think Alcock is a good reference when he is quoted as stating opinions as fact, even though he is without credentials concerning the study of EVP.

I plan to discuss his article at Wikisynergy when I get a chance. I would also be happy to work with you to write a balanced article, but as you know, Wikipedia will not allow frontier subject article. As such, I was very happy to have the article deleted. If you look at this article, for instance, you will see that there are a number of very good and demonstrable ways in which the mundane is mistaken as phenomenal. Tom Butler (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Indogochild.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Indogochild.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Perfectblue97/shadow1

User:Perfectblue97/shadow1, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Perfectblue97/shadow1 (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Perfectblue97/shadow1 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Perfectblue97/Natasha Demkina

User:Perfectblue97/Natasha Demkina, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Perfectblue97/Natasha Demkina and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Perfectblue97/Natasha Demkina during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Miami33139 (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Perfectblue97/projectfront1

User:Perfectblue97/projectfront1, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Perfectblue97/projectfront1 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Perfectblue97/projectfront1 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Miami33139 (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Perfectblue97/fkm

User:Perfectblue97/fkm, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Perfectblue97/fkm and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Perfectblue97/fkm during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Miami33139 (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Perfectblue97/summerwind

User:Perfectblue97/summerwind, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Perfectblue97/summerwind and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Perfectblue97/summerwind during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Miami33139 (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:KimPossible.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:KimPossible.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal Project

After reading your userpage, I like your mentality, which I pretty much agree with. I see you haven't edited for a while. I'm a member of WikiProject Paranormal too. Twinsday 06:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Joss possible.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Joss possible.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Cook family.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Cook family.png. 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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Light1.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Light1.png, 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. ---mattbuck (Talk) 18:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Elyon Brown.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Elyon Brown.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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:HeartofKandrakar.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:HeartofKandrakar.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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Blackeyedkid.png

A tag has been placed on File:Blackeyedkid.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip [i.e. a Word document or PDF file] that has no encyclopedic use.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kelly ^hi! 08:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blackeyedkid.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Blackeyedkid.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Kelly ^hi! 08:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Hale family.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hale family.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Lair family.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lair family.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Lin family.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lin family.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Matt Olsen.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Matt Olsen.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Mr huggles.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mr huggles.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Miss Go.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Miss Go.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:P70.gif

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:P70.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shadowpeople.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Shadowpeople.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Cloudbound (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ralph and melisa3.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ralph and melisa3.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Triffid sting.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Triffid sting.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Killer badger for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Killer badger is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killer badger until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Nerissa for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nerissa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nerissa until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Elongated shorty (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox encounter

Template:Infobox encounter has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 20 March 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) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox paranormal term

Template:Infobox paranormal term has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. jps (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Overturnedminibus.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Overturnedminibus.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

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

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Smashedphonebooths.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Smashedphonebooths.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

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

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Matton1.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Matton1.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flatwoods monster newspaper1.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Flatwoods monster newspaper1.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Lo2004.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lo2004.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better source request for File:Oreswamp.jpg

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

File:Oreswamp.jpg

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Tichbornedole.png

The file File:Tichbornedole.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused and redundant, a higher resolution version already existed on Commons at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tichborne_dole.jpg

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Lord Belbury (talk) 11:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Lo2004.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lo2004.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]