Jump to content

User talk:Skeletor2112/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3


Overkill

Hope you don't mind me carrying out the work on the Overkill albums. I see you are writing some more about them now - you should be able to take the "stubs" off now!! Good teamwork, although you should take all the credit. Great pages. I was into Overkill back "in the day" - 1987 to 1993 and because of your pages, it made me decide to catch up with them and I'm glad I did. From The Underground is awesome. Shit, they all are! Bubba hotep 12:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean by the NPoV issue. I've just done another new article – Ensign's For What It's Worth (EP) – how can you possibly stay neutral writing about something as emotive as music, ffs?! This is why I like that sort of music and metal - it is impossible to try to describe with a level head! Besides, someone who does not like the music but writes about it could also be accused of not having a NPoV. Difficult. Anyway, the new stuff you did on Overkill is excellent. Bubba hotep 20:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

UFC Brazil

it was a mistake, just forget about it!!! but i DID search here and there, but i found NO tv channel or ppv service that broadcasts UFC in Brazil!!! could you just tell me one, no im not challenging you, but i found NONE!!! --Too Cool 07:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC) overkill and megadth are the best bands ever

WHY

WHY? cant i edit my own talk page and user account!!! i should have the right to do that. --Too Cool 12:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


i think YOU havent read the rules, it clearly says here- Wikipedia:Talk_page#Etiquette that we CAN delete a comment after we have REPLIED to it !!! and i have replied to you twice (look at the above posts). --Too Cool 09:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:MirkoSapp.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Megadeth

Good luck with getting Megadeth up to GA standard, though the inline citations will need a slight cleanup, and there'll have to be more inline citations. The section about Megadeth and Grammy's will also have to be converted from a list into prose also - this could form part of a section about Megadeth's legacy. LuciferMorgan 17:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Want me to help with cleaning up the inline citations? If you wish to add more inline citations, online music interviews would be a good idea. LuciferMorgan 21:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
www.rockdetector.com has a few Megadeth interviews done by Bernard Doe - cool guy who I speak to via email. When referencing a DVD interview, it's the same as referencing a book. Right now I'm trying to save Iron Maiden from FA removal (a hard job), so can't do much but I'll help where I can - I'll clean up the inline cites for you so don't worry about them. As concerns the Metal wikiproject, this is what I'd like;
1) All metal related articles rated (as you said on the talk page).
2) A list of GA articles, GA candidates, and GA removal candidates, which'll act as an incentive to improve articles.
3) More inline cites in articles, and reliable sources used.
4) Fancruft removal, and less of this "one of the most important albums/bands" weasly type statements - I can't stand this type of rubbish which seems to have riddled articles on bands and albums. Rather than "important band", I'd rather see "has X amount of platinum discs from RIAA", "has one this award.." and those type of statements - ones which are fact rather than opinion. If using opinion we should quote notable reviewers, with both negative and positive comments to meet NPOV. LuciferMorgan 16:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, mentioning any nominations Megadeth has had will be insufficient - it has to be in prose, not list format. List formats are criteria for people to stop an article from gaining GA/FA status. Thought I should let you know. LuciferMorgan 16:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind helping here and there. As for Rockdetector, it's the music interviews with Dave Mustaine there I mentioned, not their biography. For biographical info, I'd prefer to use other websites as their info is sometimes incorrect. LuciferMorgan 16:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I notice the article makes statements about some albums, like "Critics said..." with just using AMG as a reference - they would be classed weasly statements, and would be a major obstacle in any hopes of GA or FA status. If you had 4-5 refs backing this up it wouldn't be classed weasly, but one would. Using one ref, you could say "Stephen Erlewine Jones of AMG said" which'd be fine, but "Critics said" wouldn't be fine with just a single ref. LuciferMorgan 09:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
How's it going with the Megadeth article? By the way, I made a mess up with the inline cites as they need to come AFTER the full stop, not before. Sorry about that. LuciferMorgan 20:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Megadeth/Fallen Angels

Hi Skeletor2112 First of all, please excuse my lack of Wikipedia experience, as I am a beginner user of Wikipedia and not yet familiar with its complexities. Second, concerning the Megadeth article. I have tried, as you know, to add a short bit about guitarist Roobert Cromwell, who has personally been a friend of Mustaine's since they were kids. Robert Cromwell & Mustaine did work on Fallen Angels together until they disbanded as the two had different musical directions, specifically on guitar. The quote I used in my short bit (which you deleted) was a direct quote of Mustaine himself and it did read, word for word as follows: "...Fallen Angels was nothing more than a beginning stage of Megadeth and a very productive or influential one at that (Mustaine)." This is a direct quote of Mustaine's from a magazine. I am a personal, very close friend of Cromwell's. I have photos of he and Mustaine from 1982-1983. All I wanted to do was add the bit about Cromwell and Fallen Angels as it is directly related to the foundation of Megadeth as Mustaine said so himself. What do you think? Annagrace 18:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, Cromwell is willing to meet with you in person or offer whatever proof you need to leave our entry on Wikipedia as it was.

You can email him at robertcromwell@gmail.com so we can resolve this in a timely manner.

Thanks! Annagrace 18:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sales and Megadeth

Sales verifications are almost impossible(worldwide sales anyways). I have been trying for quite some time to update the Metallica article with better citations but haven't had any luck. Putting sales in the lead pushes usually the article towards "advertising" but, on the Metallica page, I think it reads OK. The sales info is duplicated in the discography section. Eventually one or the other will have to go. And whether LZ and Deep Purple are "heavy metal"...in today's world...I have seen endless "wiki-debates" about it. But when it comes right down to it, it's all about WP:V. And just about every professional music publication seems to annoint them with that genre so I try to stick with that since it's so easily citable. Personally I view them both as "hard rock first"...but...WP:CITE always wins. Great work on the Megadeth page BTW. I don't edit that article too much, but I do keep it in my VandalProof watchlist because it's a regular target for vandalism. Every morning when I review what's been done to it while I've been away...I always check the edit history back to the last version that you worked on. You've been the most dedicated editor that article has had in quite some time and it's looking better and better every day. Wikipedia music pages(especially Heavy metal ones) read more like teen book reports than actual encyclopedia articles. It's great to see that Megadeth has a page that's "encyclopedic" and not "grade 6 fancruft". Keep up the good work! Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 13:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Also, Metallica have sold over 90 million records. LuciferMorgan 15:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

A much better username! The CAPLOCKS were a little...well...y'know. I saw Rush on the 2112 tour(+ the Hemispheres tour and the PW tour) That first show in 1976 had me hooked and they've been my favorite band ever since. I worked on the Rush FA push and I know how hard it is to get a Hard rock/Heavy metal article featured. The key to getting the Rush article FA'd was "keeping it short". The history section was huge...so we moved it out to a 'History of Rush' article and just kept the important details. Plus Trivia/"in Popular Culture" sections are taboo on Wikipedia so, again, we just separated all the fluff out into it's own article. It'd be nice to see Iron Maiden get it's FA back. The reason it lost it was just that it got too bloated with "fancruft" and OR.(needs more cites too) I have trouble with that article all the time with editors changing the en-GB grammar/spelling to U.S english. It gets vandalised quite a bit too. A dedicated push will get it back to FA status easily. Metallica...well that's a bit different. The Metallica article attracts some of the worst Wikipedia has to offer(editor wise) + it's a vandal magnet. But there are a few dedicated "watchers" who try to keep it clean. I actually met Metallica after a club date back in 1984 when they were opening for Raven. I had a long conversation with Cliff Burton about 2 mutual favorite bands...Thin Lizzy and ZZ Top. He was a special talent. Good luck with all 3 articles! "You have assumed control" Anything you try to do...I will see that vandals don't undo. Keep up the excellent work! Take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 11:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Go America

America!America! Dammit, I'm makin that edit!Wi-king 01:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Music star

Overdue award!
For contributions to the music genre – Now that I do know how to give awards, this is the one you should have had about three months ago when I came across the Overkill album articles and decided to stay here at Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! Bubba hotep 10:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Bas Rutten reverts

Thanks for the reply. I have seen worse than this guy but his anal retentiveness annoys me, as he's a destroyer and not a builder. Thanks for the kind words. Crazyknight 14:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Megadeth

You addressed the concerns I made, and congratulations on doing so. I hope it passes FAC. LuciferMorgan 08:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Which article are you going to work on after this one should this one pass FAC? I'm just curious. LuciferMorgan 05:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
When you start working on Iron Maiden please inform me as I'd like to help. I'm the one who added the overall majority of the inline citations to the article (from the official bio's 2nd edition mainly), and did some work on it. I stopped though when some editors did some edits I disagreed with, specifically saying "Seventh Son of a Seventh Son" was inspired by a Scott Orson Card book, of which there's NO evidence - that album was just a concept album. The main problems with the article are weasly statements, much like the state you found Megadeth before working on it. LuciferMorgan 05:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
It's cool we have that Maiden official bio, but we need to watch which edition's we have, as there's 3 out. Each edition has different page numbers, so we gotta be careful. LuciferMorgan 05:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Why the number of albums they've sold has even been mentioned is rather silly as it changes all the time. I wouldn't even consider using Rush and Pink Floyd as examples - they wouldn't pass FAC today, and'll end up as FARs unless they've improved. USe the KLF - what I was saying is if the lead shouldn't contain any info that isn't in the rest of the article. Therefore, it should be cited in the rest of the article. LuciferMorgan 12:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

PRIDE

TooCool strikes again but thanks for your edits to my reworking of the PRIDE rules section. All helpful stuff. Ironically,TooCool yabbers on about the official rules but the official rules say "Ippon" and not "submission", so what is he talking about? Thanks again, you're one of the good guys. -- Crazyknight 15:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Megadeth band promo1984.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Megadeth band promo1984.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may 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. Jkelly 19:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Megadeth1988.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Megadeth1988.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may 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. Jkelly 19:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

When you write, "aside from fair use rationale, link to source, and licensing tags, the image pages also need copyright status? Such as: '© 2006 Megadeth.com'", that is more-or-less correct. There are a couple of other things worth noting:
  • Copyright for a photograph almost always rests with the photographer, not the subject of the photograph. Assume that this is the case unless there is specific wording otherwise. If you do see a copyright notice that says that copyright is to the subject, or the subject's agent, it is probably, but not necessarily, a promotional image with an implicit license to republish. I, personally, would err on the side of caution when republishing something that did not look like this.
  • Some people will argue that any image of a band is "replaceable" per WP:FUC #1 -- it probably doesn't make a lot of sense to devote a lot of time to tracking down unfree images when there is a real danger that they will be deleted for failing WP:FUC.
  • I wouldn't place any bets that we will continue to rely on "promotional photographs" at all to illustrate articles, even in the near future. Again, it may not make sense to put a lot of effort into tracking them down.
My advice, and this is advice instead of an objection to FA status for the article, is to take the time on fan message boards or emails to websites, and ask the photographers to release their work under a free license. See Wikipedia:Boilerplate requests for permission for examples. I've managed to get quite a few web-resolution images released under the GFDL. It's not substantially more difficult than finding images that actually pass WP:FUC. Jkelly 17:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Megadeth Featured article candidate

Its a good article, I'm dont think it a topic to be featured. About lead, I was prompting you to shorten the paragraph. The WP:LEAD is very vague and you have to use your own sense. In the general it is advisable to have the lead paragraph much shorter than present, it will attract more readership. FrummerThanThou 06:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said its a good article. First off you're right the FA Crtra don't include editor's interest in the field of the article. So I'll retract my opposition and consider support to make up for you bother! ;) In my opinion the lead is overwhelming, this I surmise based on most other music articles. I'm sure you can understand that. You see the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, was a historical event which people need more information on in the lead, its a research Field. Music is not a research field and people want to know the facts up front, quick. Again it does comply with WP:FACT rules but not to its spirit. Take my advice, as it says in WP:LEAD "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than three to four paragraphs." ta! FrummerThanThou 08:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Slayer

Hey, i asked a experienced wikipedian for some advice and she was a great help. She gave a lot of pointers on how to improve it for FA status so you might want to take a look. I'm going to improve on them right now, i added the pointers to the 'to-do' list on the talk page, i will cross them off once it has been dealt with.. :) M3tal H3ad 01:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on the FA, well deserved, goodluck with getting Maiden back to FA status! :D M3tal H3ad 02:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Megadeth IS AN FA

Wahey! Get the balloons out! Megadeth is a featured article! Congratulations! LuciferMorgan 01:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Hopefully now it'll help the Metal WikiProject realise how fancrufty a lot of the Metal articles are - if you listen to the Metal articles, every Metal band alive is influential lol. A site called www.maidenfans.com has some interviews that might be worth checking out, whilst there's a few others all over the web. Really, the article needs the same treatment Megadeth had. I encountered one problem while trying to improve the article though, and that was editors making unhelpful edits. LuciferMorgan 08:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
One thing about the Megadeth article... what is the point of the US flag in the infobox? It's pointless. LuciferMorgan 09:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
And did I mention I'm off to see Maiden tonight in Cardiff? It's gonna be great I reckon (seen em once already). LuciferMorgan 09:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Mixed martial arts article improvement drive

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts is now taking suggestions for the new MMA article improvement drive! Please add your input to decide what our first collaboration should be. VegaDark 21:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Megadeth_1997.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Megadeth_1997.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. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Belated congrats

...on the work on the Megadeth article, helping bring it to FA status no less. Good job! I'm joining the metal Wikiproject, btw. About time, some might say! Bubba hotep 23:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:B&BExperience.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:B&BExperience.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 05:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Rock music Wikiproject invitation

Hello WikiProject Metal member.
WikiProject Metal music is important in expanding encyclopedic coverage of the metal. It brings attention to the lesser-known bands, and significantly improves the quality of the famous ones. Five Featured articles and two formers is proof of that.
This is the stuff I wish to achieve with the somewhat recently resurrected WikiProject Rock music. I hope to also attract attention to rock music articles of all sorts, and hopefully change some to GA or FA status. I invite you to come join us, and embrace the links between metal and rock music in general.
Rock on.
-- Reaper X 05:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal Big Four Wikiproject

I have just created the Megadeth Wikiproject. But I think that the scope is too narrow (just Megadeth) and I think that the Metal Genere Wikiproject is too large of a scope to handle everything. I propose that we make a Wikiprject Big Four, or something to that effect to cover the Big Four American Metal bands, Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer, and Anthrax. I'm eger to hear any opinons.

Hello

Hello, Skeletor, I randomly found the page Battle Magic and noticed that the word 'awarded' doesn't make sense. You seem to know about this stuff. Any idea how to fix it?ERTalk 14:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Carcass1993.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Carcass1993.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Carnage1988.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Carnage1988.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Fight Till Death 83 demo clip.ogg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fight Till Death 83 demo clip.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:EliminatorRutten.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:GreenJellypigs.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Overkill ep.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:OverkillThenNow.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Undertheinfluence.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skeletor2112/Archive_2&oldid=1140062658"