User talk:Peter Greenwell/archive1

Image Habit of F. australis

Hi Peter, i'm verry glad about your new image Image:Medium_crowash.jpg. Is there a way to put this to Commons? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Flindersia_australis

I was working on http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flindersia_australis

Bye, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:HWe 22:33, 26 Mai 2006

 Much thanks. I do not have this species ever seen in Germany  ;) 21:10, 4 Jun 2006

Desert raisin

Hello! The article that you've recently created has the title 'Desert raisin', but in the text you call the plant the 'Australian desert raisin', and in the taxo-box you used the alternative name (I've changed that one). In order to make them consistent, should I change the article title or the text? Which is the correct name? Thanks Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm moving it now. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:08, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image attribution

Hi Peter, thanks for adding the image for Allan Cunningham. But could you please go back and tag the image as public domain, art, or whatever is appropriate (i.e. with {{PD}}, {{Art}}, etc.) to ensure that it is not deleted? Please also provide a link to your online source... Thanks, Fawcett5 17:09, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Peter, thanks for updating those image tags. I also am pretty sure that 2D images of public domain art are fair dealing in Australia...but it doesn't really matter, since the Wiki servers are in the US and are therefore covered by US law and precedent. Cheers, Fawcett5 13:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Woollynightshade.jpg

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Woollynightshade.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Admrboltz (T | C) 22:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Tamarillofruit.jpg

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Tamarillofruit.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 17:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Bush_raisin.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bush_raisin.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 14:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Richmondriver.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Richmondriver.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 13:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Castanospora, et al

Hi Peter - it's standard botanical citation practice. Check the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, or any flora. Bear in mind that very often, the species is transferred to a new genus by someone other than the original describer, so the author of the species is often not the same as the author of the genus. Thus not citing the author leaves the data uncertain. And yes, if there are instances of pages on wiki where the citation is not complete, they do need to be added.

For an example of the complexity that can occur, the species Argania spinosa was first described by Linnaeus as Sideroxylon spinosum L. This was then transferred to its own new genus Argania by Roem. & Schult. as Argania sideroxylon Roem. & Schult., who established the new genus correctly but used an invalid name as they did not follow Linnaeus' original epithet. This error was later corrected by Skeels, who provided the correct name in the new genus, Argania spinosa (L.) Skeels. Thus the author of the genus is different to the authors of the species.

The Castanospora example where all the names are described by a single author is actually a very unusual case. This does not make author citation any different - you still need to cite it fully so as to indicate who did what. - MPF 13:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Signature Dramas

I can't get my signature to work. [[User:Peter1968|<span style="color: red; background-color: black;">'''♠ Peter ♠'''</span>]] ^{[[User talk:Peter1968|'''<font color="Blue">talk</font>'''}]]

Which is doing this Peter1968♠ Peter ♠ ^talk 15:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC) I want my red name to be the clickable thingy!

Hello! I have come in response to your {{helpme}} call. Your signature looks mostly okay and the red part links to your user page, which is what I guess you wanted. However, I suppose you want to get rid of the extra "Peter1968" before the red part too.

Please check your user preferences; in the "User profile" tab, is the "Raw signature" option checked? If not, check it. That will fix a fair number of signature-related problems. :-) Kimchi.sg | talk 15:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

♠ Peter ♠ ^talk 16:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

♠ Peter ♠ 16:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Woohoo, thanks Kimchi.sg

No problem, glad that it solves your problem. :) Kimchi.sg | talk 01:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

 P e t e r  15:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Jack Vance

Thanks for the heads-up! I tried pouring a little cold water on the simmering dispute, we'll see if it helps :) Ahasuerus 16:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Peirce vs. Pierce vs. Pearce

I think it's just a hangover from the days when spelling wasn't standardized -- supposedly there are a hundred or so ways of spelling Shakespeare, for instance. But the Peirce variation, I think, is much more common in upper New England than anywhere else, at least it used to be. When I grew up in Maine Peirce as opposed to Pierce wasn't that uncommon. At Harvard there was Charles S. Peirce, who pronounced it Purse. And there was an up-scale grocer/wine merchant in Boston named S. S. Peirce whose pronunciation was uncertain. Once you get out of New England, however, Peirce becomes pretty unusual. I think there is, or was, a newspaper columnist named Neal Peirce or something similar.... Hayford Peirce 17:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Jack Vance

(I'm bringing this here so that the thread on the talk page will close, hope that's ok with you).

You said:

"We" don't "own" this page, Renesis13, and neither do you. Anyone may add, amend, refute, alter, etc, as per Wikipedia's charter. What I object to, and I'm sure I'm not alone, is the merely curious coming in here, pursing their virtual lips and telling us we're not sourcing stuff, or we're not writing articles true to the spirit of some policy, etc. Seeing that the merely curious are as much editor as I am, it has to be asked: why can't the merely curious make these changes for the better, rather than tell us "regulars" here what to do? If any of these merely curious feel a need for change, go ahead and make them, and don't expect others to do the work for you. Fair enough request, don't you think? Peter1968 08:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope I don't come across like I'm trying to own the page -- I'm certainly not, and I'm not trying to take away anyone's right to edit it either. Let me just say that in the very beginning, I just thought Arvin Sloane's removal of the {{WPBiography}} template was inappropriate, and baffling. Blanking, threats, and insults are a problem no matter what is involved. He seems to feel that I have come in to lecture "all you regulars", but I don't know what I've done to give that impression. I do think that the attitude of the main editors of the page seems to reflect a bit of a feeling of ownership, but I can understand that you wouldn't like being told what to do by the "merely curious" that just happen by. My guess is editors who came across as insulting and uptight with the rules were merely trying to spur some improvement in the article that they were unable to do themselves, but it is a shame if they offended you. I personally know nothing about Jack Vance. It would be very easy for me to determine if a particular fact is sourced or not, but very difficult for me to fix it without just removing it. That's why I would ask someone who knows what they are doing to make a change -- not to say you are doing something wrong, but just because continual improvement is the way things work around here. By the way, I assume you already knew this, but the WPBiography template is a standard template being placed on ALL biographies. It is not saying that anything is wrong with the Jack Vance article in particular. There is also nothing bad about a "B Class" rating. It is just below an official Good Article, which is actually a formal review process. It could be reviewed for that right now if you wanted. -- Renesis13 08:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding my personal attacks comment on the Template talk page... you said the following: You guys (administrators, super-active Wikipedia addicts, template inventors, bored individuals, etc) seem hell-bent on converting Wikipedia from being an encyclopedia editable and readable by anyone, into some sort of esoteric cross-referenced morass of hypercomplexity." to me and Gamaliel regarding the template (a template that is being put on all biographies) that we were just trying to keep in tact (I'm neither administrator, super-active, or a template inventor, and I object to being called bored! :) ). Also, the phrases "child monitor", "hall monitor", and "guideline fetishism" aren't exactly civil. However, I'm not saying that you made some grieve personal attack... just that the preceding comments just make the situation worse. -- Renesis13 16:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You're certainly entitled to have that opinion. I probably should have never stepped in on the Jack Vance page, since it seems you're correct about it -- it appears to be lost... a corner of Wikipedia owned by a few academics on the topic who will insist on offending any newcomers. I was trying to help Wikipedia as a whole, but I guess I've learned my lesson. -- Renesis13 16:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right. And the thing is, Gamaliel isn't even hindering editing or discussion of the article by removing that section. Archiving an inactive discussion that wasn't useful anyway in no way hurts any of the editors slamming him for it -- they can still get to it, just one click away. It's as if they are just insulted that someone would step on their precious territory. I appreciate having been able to work things out calmly with you and I apologize sincerely for grouping you in with that lot. It's a mess. Just curious, since you've been there for so long and are familiar with the topic--do you have any idea why it's like that? Does it have something to do with Jack Vance's philosophies or the nature of his fans? -- Renesis (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

List of faux pas AfD

Howdy, you have recently voted delete in this AfD with concerns about the article promoting sterotypes and misunderstandings. The article has undergone a substantial rewrite since you voiced your concerns and I would like to invite you to take a look at the new version. In trimming the article down from 62 kilobites to 41, I tried my best to remove some of vague or sterotypical faux pas that would be the most misunderstood. I also was able to source around 80% of the article. I would appreciate any input on what more could be done to possibly sway you to reconsider your position. Thanks and I appreciate your time. Agne 06:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Jacaranda

Hi there. Is there a reference for the Jacaranda being native to Australia? I was under the impression it was not native. A casual search of other sources seems to support this view, but I can't find anything authoritative either way. Is there a scientific controversy about whether it is native or not, I wonder, or just a general misunderstanding. And if it is native, is it the variety commonly planted that is native (or is that a South American exotic) while the true native is less popular. It would be great to have more information in this area. Thanks. Not a user yet, but my name is James.

As far as I know, all members of the genus are South American. Peter1968 04:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah. My apologies. For some reason I had thought you were responsible for the Revision as of 04:54, 27 October 2006 from 203.122.110.30, which adds "... of Gondwananan origin being found in Australia, South America and southern Africa ... each bearing the ancestors of today's various Jacaranda trees" implying that the Jacaranda is native to Australia. I can now see that this was not your revision. I still wonder if the revision is valid though. Thanks.

Thanks for the note; all the refs I've seen restrict the genus to South & Central America, so I'll delete the bad info (which is presumably based on a misunderstanding of naturalised plants). - MPF 14:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

System Shock userbox

Actually, I didn't make the userbox. I took code made by Grm wnr, and put it in a userbox.--Drat (Talk) 10:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

1-Mahfuzl

Hey, nice to see another editor working at New Pages Patrol! Just a reminder, please do not just tag {{delete}}, but specify which criterion you are using to justify a speedy deletion. Thanks! - SpLoT _{(*T* C+u+g+v)} 11:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Casino, New South Wales

The article is very brief, with only a brief description about the town. What I can suggest to improve the article is, if you got the time, to do a bit of research about the history of the town, the infrastructure, and so forth, and then start from there to expand the article. Presuming the expansions doesnt contravene with WP:NOT guidelines.

I stubbed the article as per Wikiproject assessment guidelines, for a bit more information see here --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 10:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Strike-through text

Trouble on the Vance Page

Peter, when you say 'guys', in the phrase 'knock it off guys', I hope you do not mean me, and if you do, could you explain to me what you want me to knock off?PaulRhoads 19:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter, you wrote: 'It's pretty simple. No arguments, no flames, no contention. Not just you, anyone. Please don't think it was directed at you alone. Peter1968 20:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)' But you make no distinction between a normal and polite person (myself) trying to do normal things, and over-the-top goons with strange agendas who stoop at nothing. This attitude, though it may provide brief sensations of moral suporiority to everyone indiscriminately, may catch up with you one day.PaulRhoads 07:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Logan city council logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Logan city council logo.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 03:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Voting on commons

I assert that I have voted for picture number 4 Peter1968 08:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Nr66.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Nr66.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Iamunknown 04:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Saw Banksia flowers.jpg

I've done a crop to this image and uploaded it to Image:Saw Banksia flowers cropped.jpg. If you have an concerns please drop a note on my talk page Gnangarra 07:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats where I saw it, was going to put up Image:Banksia epica 02 gnangarra.jpg, but two banksia images could detract from each other Gnangarra 07:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

DOMAI

I'm ready to accept there is a perfectly simple explanation for your reverting of the DOMAI article, but I don't know and can't figure out what it is. I don't want to get into an edit war over this, so would you mind awfully telling me why you did it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.164.46 (talk • contribs)

Create an account, sign in and I'll tell you. Don't feel like I have to respond to an IP address. Peter1968 21:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Feeling a bit élitist, are we Peter? Go on, then, tell me. I've had this account for months, I just hardly ever bother to sign in. Roccondil 23:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Call it elitist if you like buddy, but signed-in accounts are taken more seriously than anon edits and comments around here. Not my rule or convention - just the way it is. Peter1968 04:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ke raintree3.jpg

Hello, it's a photo of a Koelreuteria bipinnata to me. Are you sure of the species ? (K. Elegans) Regards PurpleHz 21:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. PurpleHz 10:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sugarcane deleted

Hi, the article Sugarcane wasn't deleted, the page had been replaced by a vandal. Looking at the article history (one of the tabs at the top of the window normally) when you discover such things gives you a tool to reverse the vandalism. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 17:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mehrunes Dagon.jpg

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD behaviour

Dear Peter1968, Please read over Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion. Specifically I think you ought to pay attention to the part that says:

"Do not remove or modify other people's comments even if you believe them to be in bad faith"

Note also that Afd is not a vote, it is a discussion. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and AfD discussions are conducted to test for consensus with respect to the state of an article in light of the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. You ought to expect comment upon your opinions if they do not take these into account, and you may even expect the closing admin to disregard your opinion entirely if it is not based on things like WP:N. Pete.Hurd 16:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

While I disagree with Pete on the article being discussed, and support keeping it --and similar articles--as you should well know if you've been following the afds, your conduct in removing his comment was wrong on several levels.

AfD is a discussion, and that is established policy. In the German WP, AfD is a vote. They have the right to do it differently, and they chose to. But there is a firm established policy that in the English WP, AfD is a discussion, and the closing administrator is supposed to pay attention to the discussion as well as the count.

You apparently disagree with the policy.You certainly have the right to. But what you need to do is to argue the case at the Village Pump--which is the place to discuss such a radical change in our operations. I think you would have almost nobody agreeing with you, but I may be wrong. In the meantime, however, you must abide by the established policy.

If you did want to express your against-consensus view that it should be a vote, you should have done this by saying so in response to his comment. Your comment would have properly been ignored by the closer, but you weould have been your right to make it & it would not have been removed.

The only times a comment is ever removed from an Afd is in the case of outrageous vandalism or participation by a banned editor. It would be wholly wrong to do so unless one were certain everyone would agree.

It is so much wrong to follow this course that I give you a formal warning that you will be blocked if you ever do it again. I consider it disruption of the encyclopedia. I would not do this personally if I agreed with Pete on the afd in question, for it might conceivably be construed as COI. But as I disagree with him, I am merely preserving his right to fair discussion. You have in my opinion the correct view on the article, but you must not go about things in this manner. That is not the way to defend content on wikipedia. DGG (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Cyrodiil Article

Awesome. Just seemed like you were attacking both of us. Either way, sounds good. Zeppelin462 15:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mehrunes Dagon.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mehrunes Dagon.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. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Indian tour

The tour is now continuing until the appeal, so it was temporarily suspended. What is the confusion? --Stephen 08:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Churchheyday.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Churchpersiaep.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Churchsingsongs.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Magicianamongthespiritsoriginal.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ofskinsandhearts.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)