User talk:Wiki-star

It is suspected that this user may be a sock puppet, meat puppet or impersonator of Frieza-Bomber.
Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Frieza-Bomber for evidence. See block log

Notes for the suspect

Notes for the accuser

Welcome!

Hello, Wiki-star, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Kukini 06:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 2006

Wiki-star, I noticed that you removed several warnings regarding copyrighted images from your talk page. Please do not remove warnings from your talk page without discussing them. You may wish to consider archiving your old discussions, but please do not blank your page without replying to the issues with copyrighted images. I would strongly suggest that you refrain from uploading any images without first reading the image use policy as I've told you before. Isopropyl 04:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-star: I had to! They were taking up far too much space within this talk page. But thanks again though. Wiki-star 17:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ARCHIVE. Please do not simply remove warnings. Isopropyl 17:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:222-83.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:222-83.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. 05:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image sourcing problems

Hello, Wiki-alf. I've been asked to look into your image uploads, and I've a few comments to make. Firstly, I'm glad that you've such a strong interest in Wikipedia, and I hope you continue that. However, your addition of images without sources aren't helpful. Because of the copyright problems that Wikipedia faces, we have to delete images without copyright and source information. If you can't provide source and copyright info, it's better to not upload them at all as it wastes the time of someone who has to go through the images and delete them. Please don't do this anymore. If you have any questions, you're more than welcome to ask me on my talk page. Yours, Snoutwood (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-star: I'm actually in the process of doing that. But because i uploaded such a tremendous amount of images, it seems like i'm not getting to all of them. But i'm on it, no doubt! Wiki-star 17:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than uploading them and then putting sources on them, why not simply put the sources on them in the first place? That would solve all of these problems. Snoutwood (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:026-06.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:026-06.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. 12:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:048-20.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:048-20.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. 08:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:049-15.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:049-15.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. 01:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert Vandalism

keep in mind that you will be reported if you continue to vandalize the buu article. this will of course result in your banning for your not following the 3rr revert rule. - Zarbon

Wiki-star: I'm not stopping you from reporting me. However, i will stop you from adding more "decoration" to the Buu article when it isn't neccessary!

Wiki-star 20:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that would mean that you will eventually get banned for constant and unneccessary reverts. - Zarbon

Revert warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Voice of Treason 16:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-star: Why are you warning me about something that you yourself is also commiting? Don't be a hypocrite me good sir, life isn't all about that! One more thing you should understand laddy, is that this is not a debate. The article is fine the way it is, theres no need to keep reverting it! Wiki-star 17:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly seems to have been a debate as others (that being, several) severely disagree with your application of the word "fine". And as you already knew, discussion had been done, and yet, you still reverted at first opportunity you got. So no, I'm not particularly worried about hypocracy coming from someone who says one thing and does another. And if the admins do deem me responsible, I'll take my licks like any reasonable editor. Thanks for the response. Voice of Treason 17:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have bene reported to WP:AN/3RR for violation of the three revert rule. Isopropyl 18:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-star: Go ahead and report me, you're also guilty of this. If i am banned from this site, it has definitelty been a very pleasurable experience! Wiki-star 18:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely not the attitude that you should have with regards to editing here at Wikipedia. If you have gained nothing from this second block for 3RR at Majin Buu, I would recommend that you be permanently banned from editing the article. Isopropyl 19:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

--jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 18:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on June 7 2006 (UTC) to Buu

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 18:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent diatribe at Talk:Buu

Let me first say that you should reconsider committing WP:POINT violations (such as reverting Buu) and asking to be permabanned (such as at Talk:Buu. I actually thing you'd make a fine contributor if you could get over your WP:OWN issues; however, if you wish to leave Wikipedia, please do not vandalize on your way out the door. In response to your diatribe at Talk:Buu, you should have a look at the history and WP:3RR before you accuse other editors of anything. It's plain to see from the aforementioned documents that Voice of Treason did not violate 3RR. Hopefully that clears some things up. Isopropyl 16:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-star: Thanks for your concern, i really appreciate that. However, if i wish to be permanently banned, then thats my business.

I've served a purpose on this site long enough, i just can't be getting punished unfairly! And what do you mean he did not commit the voilation as well? He reported me because i kept reverting the article the right way, whereas he wanted it his way! I could've reported him, but thats a waist of my time. Anyway, thanks again! Wiki-star 16:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting Buu-related articles

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Voice of Treason 00:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-star: Thanks for your concern, but i've got other ways of removing any unneccary information within the Buu article. And unless you approach me in a compromiseable manner, you will not stop me! End of discussion!

Wiki-star 17:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[2] made on June 14 2006 (UTC) to Majin Buu

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 48 hours. William M. Connolley 20:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting boring. 72h. 1 week next time. Please learn to talk and collaborate William M. Connolley 19:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wiki-Star My name is Dragon Emperor i used to be an IP adress user but now i have decided to create a real account i was involved with some heated debates on wiki Dragon Ball articles and have noticed that you are kind but opposed by most. In me you will find a supporter at long last Dragon Emperor 05:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-star: Dragon Emperor i see. Nice to meet you. If you would like to assist me, by all means. Wiki-star 19:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw Poll

Hello, you are invited to take part in a straw poll at the Majin Buu page to avoid another revert war with User:Wiki-star.--Orion Minor 23:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done the leg work for conducting a proper straw poll. Specifically, going to all the users and informing them of the poll, and erecting the proper format. Sorry for all the work you put into your version, but it is not the proper form. Under the discussion section of the poll, post a short summary of your edits. A list would be best. --Orion Minor 23:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated vandalism on Majin Buu talk page

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Wiki-star: I honestly don't know what you're talking about! Wiki-star 01:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Truth-honestly? Changing Orion Major's comments on a whim to this and that, as its "fun". One would think you'd remember, considering you've done it no less than six times. Perhaps we expected too much out of you...? Papacha 01:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki-star: I'm vandalising? HE'S VANDALISING!!!! I'm correcting the guy's ignorance. Thats an insult to say something that is false of someone. Don't get me started man. Know what you're doing before you yap! Wiki-star 01:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Considering your "re-phrasing" is only done to tick him off, I'd say it's a fairly accurate assessment. He's yet to do anything other than move comments to their proper place or revert your notes off his own, so how HE'S VANDALISING!!!! is quite beyond my scope. If your issue is with "seems", voice your beef in discussion instead of charging others with ignorance within their own additions. Papacha 01:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki-star: Haaaa... it's useless, you wouldn't understand. You're just another one of those two timers who will never get my drift because you dislike me, and you have no beef with him. Go ahead and block me, wouldn't be the first, but i hope it's the last! Wiki-star 01:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you would think logically for a second, you'd realize they dislike you because you always vandalize articles and never provide proper evidence. All you do is say you're right, and break the rules. You just can't handle being wrong.(If I'm not supossed to coment on a subject like this, you can delete my coment Papacha, I'm sort of new so I don't know all the rules.)KojiDude 02:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-star: What i'm doing isn't vandalizing. I have contstantly tried to sit down and invite people to see my point of view, but obviously knowone gives a dam. Knowone within that Buu article has yet to prove some of my points wrong. But because i am being neglected, i neglect as well. It's not the right thing to do, i very well understand that! But when people like the administrators turn on you as well, you are left with no other choice! I appreciate your concern, but you are no match for the frustration and hard work that lingers on my wikipedian shoulders. As a result, you most likely would never understand! Wiki-star 02:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you eve think that maybe, just maybe, people don't understand because you aren't making any sense?KojiDude 02:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People have proved your points wrong many time.

PE #1: Allow Super Buu w/Gohan the title for Buu's strongest form - This one is fine.
PE #2: Allow Super Buu w/Gohan the title for "least evil" Super Buu - This has plenty of evidence against it that you refuse to take in.
PE #3: Allow External Links to be visible for other resourcing - There is one link that would be good.
PE #4: Delete the Budokai 2 informations - Many people have shown that the information should go in this article.
PE #5: Comine the Uub sections, into a new, more Concise section - I don't know what this one means.
PE #6: Add any more known facts about each of Buu's forms and transformations - Don't know what information you're talking about.
PE #7: Remove each of Buu's transformations under each Video Game title, to save space and irrelivance - There is no space to be saved. It fits on the same line as the game. It shows which of the characters are in the game.
PE #8: Allow the Image Capacity to exceed the recommended limit - If you mean adding pointless images, no.
PE #9: Custamize any Section Title, Section to better gramar or more suitable for the article - There is a policy against this. Nemu 02:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-star: AHA! THERES MY POINT EXACTLY! Half of the Proposed Edits (PE's), Nemu DOESN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND OR KNOW!!!! And instead of taking the time to ask questions to know them better, the bastard automatically votes Reject because he doesn't like me! He even agrees to some of them, but he doesn't admit it!!! Thats what i'm talking about. Ignorance, and neglect. This is what fuels my fire, and burns eveyone around! Wiki-star 02:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. HawkerTyphoon 02:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-star: No problem, i'll tone down! Just wanted to release my point out you know? Wiki-star 02:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand two of them, not half, because the wording is stupid or it lacks information. I agree with one that isn't even one of your true points and I sort of agree with the link thing. Nemu 02:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-star: So why didn't you ask what each meant, instead of assuming? Huh? I specifically said "If you have any questions, contact me" Wiki-star 02:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry Dragon Emperor 03:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-star: Hm? Is there a reason for your sorrow my good man? Wiki-star 03:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes iam sorry you were not apologized to sir Dragon Emperor 03:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-star: Naahhhh... don't mention it! Justice will be served in due time my good man, have faith! Wiki-star 03:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The POINT, wiki, is that you "invite others" to see your point of view, but you refuse to see theirs. It's one sided. You want an example? This nice Buu thing. I point out to you that Super Buu w/ Gohan tried to unmake all of reality (which would have been the most drastic action in the history of the series), would have destroyed the planet had Vegetto not blocked one of his attacks, and was going to blow it up anyway to "celebrate his omnipotence" after absorbing Vegetto, and that this behavior is just as bad as Kid Buu's or Super Buu's (arguably worse since Super Buu has more intelligence and reasoning and still behaves this way). And what do you do? You claim noone's made a point against you.. You can't even dispute that evidence because it's clear as day, actions taken within the series that's easy to verify. And your evidence against? He gave Goku 5 seconds to fuse with Mr. Satan, and he let Goku and Vegeta launch attacks that he knew would't hurt him. Well I claim that we've given YOU a chance to see OUR point of view, and since you refuse to try and see this, and have had more than your two chances, we will continue to fight YOUR ignorance until justice is served. Onikage725 08:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24 hours

You have been blocked for 24 hours. There is no reason to edit other users comments. Wikibofh_(talk) 03:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message formatting...

Just curious... why do you start off all your comments with "Wiki-star:"? It isn't realy needed since you sign all your posts at the end. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 18:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-star: Because i feel comfortable doing that. Sorry if it doesn't pleases you! Wiki-star 22:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justice

Well, looks like you've not only been blocked by wikipedia, but by AOL as well. Seems that justice was served after all. Daishokaioshin 20:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-star: :Tsk: :Tsk: :Tsk:, you have very much to learn my dear fellow contributor. Very much to learn! Wiki-star 22:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility warning

Enough of the attacks and incivility on Talk:Majin Buu, Wiki-star. No more warnings will be given. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 21:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:257-24.jpg)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:257-24.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that 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.

If you have uploaded other fair use 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. —Bkell (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr block

I have blocked you for a week for repeated 3rr even though you have been blocked before. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-star: At least you protected the page. It's not fun getting blocked, but if it's for the right reason, what can i say. Thanks anywayz! Wiki-star 04:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additions at Buu

The only reason I add the different absorption victims in that section is that it may come across as confusing to a regular reader who's unfamiliar to DBZ. Each absorption is an improvement on the last due to the increased amount of powerful victims, and leaving them out of the next title may lead that reader to think they were digested or something, and not factored into his new form and powers. Voice of Treason 17:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-star: I understand that. However, by reading each of Buu's absorptions, any good reader will realize that those victims are still within Buu. Each of Buu's absorption title resembles the most powerful victim, or the most recent absorbed victim. You can add the absorbed victims within the section if you like, but adding them in the title is uneccessary. Thanks! Wiki-star 17:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that reasoning makes sense. Voice of Treason 17:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki-star: Thanks for understanding! Wiki-star 17:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Atonement

Wiki-star: Haaaa.... it's so difficult to just let Wikipedia go! This site is the best site i have ever been on. And although it may be incredibly supportive and motivational in a postive manner, it also has disciplinary actions. And it seems i have fallen a victim in one of these disciplinary actions. I....I....I....i mean i just don't know what to say here. Yeah, i was definitely wrong for reverting the Majin Buu article. However, it seems that was primarily the only reason i was being blocked! This kinda shocked me....but what can i say? If it will make the site a better place, then by all means keep the block forever. However, i have come to an Atonement. An atonement to be a leader, and obey the simplest of rules. No matter how stiff the situation maybe, there will always be a consequence for any insubordinence. Once again fellow wikipedians, i apologize for any negative disorder in which i have currupted those around me. If it is within the benefit of our current and future fellow contributors, please keep the block. However, over the course of time i will have to get over Wikipedia (it will take a colossal amount of time). I have come to a final atonement, and hopefully wish to continue editing. Thanks for the experience (even though it was a bumpy ride) Wikipedia administers! May the grace of our Lord God keep all contributors safe and healthy, while promoting and fostering future wikipedians to such a wonderful site! Thanks again to all who helped me when i needed it, and to the administers who tought me to become a better contributor (even those who blocked me, you were the ones who really cared). Be safe, and god bless you all! Wiki-star 03:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-star: Hmmmm.....it seems there is someone wreaking a tremendous amount of havoc within that Buu article! And whats worse is that this person is trying to impersonate I. Well whoever this person is, it is not the real Wiki-star. I'm still praying and keeping my hopes of returning atoned. Hopefully someone will hear me out. Thanks Wiki-star 00:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to instigate despite our problems, but why do you care about coming back? You requested many times in the past to be permanently blocked. It's not often you can say someone was "asking for it" and mean it literally. Voice of Treason 04:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki-star: But how would you know i meant it literally Treason? It may sound like i mean it, but you don't know if i meant it. For one, whom-so-ever is causing chaos within that article has manipulated my bad reputation within that article, and increased the reputation to an extreme danger. Yeah, i was bad, but not that bad. I never threaten those i disagree with. I either ignore them, or try and persuade them. When i first came on Wikipedia i had such a good goal, because i've been reading it for months. I decided to become a member and try to improve the website, hopefully riding it of all abusers. Ironically i became what i wanted to rid of. Ever since then i've antoned of all the mistakes i made on this site (even though they were all within that Buu article). I don't know Treason. 2nd Chances are rare these days. But what can i say? Wiki-star 19:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 more recent autoblocks, more autoblocks adding up--64.12.116.10 17:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:022-17.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:022-17.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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.

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. Nilfanion (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:018-19.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:018-19.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. 05:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:244-05.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:244-05.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. 07:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Taylor1.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Taylor1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 04:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Vegetaprince.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Vegetaprince.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 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.BetacommandBot 05:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for uploading Image:Vegetaprince.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 04:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Nationals.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Nationals.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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:Non-free content, 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 the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jusjih 02:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TFA.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TFA.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) 06:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Drama-masks.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Drama-masks.gif. 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, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 22:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:DSC_0007.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:DSC_0007.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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 the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same for File:Speech@.jpg and File:Gents2.jpg. --Sherool (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:DSC 0007.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:DSC 0007.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. 06:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Gents2.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Gents2.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. 06:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tsh.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tsh.jpg, 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. Skier Dude (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Supernova

You can go to my talk page and see how to archive your talk page. I would recommend it because you look as silly as I once did. Gomezbuster (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Blackhole

Mr alleged sockpuppet has quickly gone from star to supernova to black hole. Epic fail! What are you trying to prove?Gomezbuster (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]