User talk:King Bee/Archive 2

thanks[edit]

I just wanted to say thanks for the very constructive comments you left on the GA review of Last Exit to Springfield. Not enough people leave good comments, and what you said will be helpful for me when it comes to fixing the article. I'll implement your suggestions and renominate the article in a few days. -- Scorpion 18:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. I'm glad I was able to help. Good luck! –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 18:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some editing, and I was wondering if you could take anopther look and tell me if I'm on the right path. Thanks, Scorpion 21:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think so; just watch out for spelling errors (like "bgack" in the intro) and missing periods (in the intro as well) when you make copyedits. If you like, I can lend a hand; I just won't be allowed to review it when you submit it again for GA. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 21:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help would be greatly appreciated. I've never been one for copyediting and I usually do miss stuff. -- Scorpion 21:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to lend a hand. =)–King Bee ^{(T • C)} 21:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert on my talkpage.--Isotope23 19:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 19:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar For You.[edit]

		The Original Barnstar
		For putting up with a lot when dealing with Starwars1955 and his numerous sockpuppets. Acalamari 21:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch. You're a very kind editor, I am glad to have worked with you. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 22:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Acalamari 23:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Year Zero (album)[edit]

Please put back in the other changes I made to the page, particularly the citation regarding the album production credits. BotleySmith 22:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism From Starwars1955.[edit]

A user called Poison91 vandalized your user and talk pages, as well as Aviper2k7's. He also vandalized Luna Santin's and Isotope's user pages as well. An administrator, Kusma, blocked Poison91, as that user is a sockpuppet of Starwars1955. I'm telling you this in case you receive more vandalism from Starwars1955. It seems that Starwars1955 has found another way to evade his countless blocks, and his ban. Acalamari 22:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Just ignore him. Revert his edits when you see them, and an administrator will come along shortly and block him. Thanks for looking out. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 15:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help![edit]

You know how when you get new messages on your talk page, that really nice orange boilerplate is at the top of every page, letting you know that you have new messages? Is there a script (or some other way) to customize that so that the boilerplate will be present with regards to edits on other pages? –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 15:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at the moment, as far as I remember. You have a watchlist; this doesn't do what you requested, but many people use it as a substitute (I check my watchlist frequently). If this isn't close enough to what you want, you could try putting a request for a new script in at Wikipedia:WikiProject user scripts, or requesting a change to the software at mediazilla:. --ais523 15:47, 19 February 2007 (U T C)

Yeah, the watchlist is great; I was hoping to take it like "one step further" with the boilerplate deal. I just have been watching a particular page for extreme amounts of vandalism, and thought it would be helpful if such a script existed. Thanks a ton for answering my question so quickly! –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 15:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, I decided to write a script to notify you (less intrusively than with an orange bar) at the top of the page, so that you're notified whenever your watchlist changes. You can find it as 'watchlist notifier' on WikiProject user script's script page. Hope that helps! --ais523 09:16, 20 February 2007 (U T C)

Speedying[edit]

In reference to Groundwater-related subsidence. You could be a little more careful about speedying articles. Starting an article with an inuse tag may be a little unorthodox, but you could at least check to see if the person is a reputable editor or at least give them some time, that is what the tag is for. As you can see, its a useful article now. Basar 23:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. When I'm tracking new pages, I have little patience for those who aren't doing useful things. I'll try to be a little more careful in the future. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 00:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce McPherson (Australian judge)[edit]

I've created many, many basic Supreme Court judge pages. Are you intending on "speedy deleting" all of them? Kindly advise as to your intent. BenedictX 01:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any cited sources, just some links to some other pages. I didn't know if it was a test page or not. I'll be more careful in the future, but you should cite your sources. If I see a new page with references, I wouldn't think to delete it at all. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 02:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons POTY 2006[edit]

I, King Bee, hereby declare my vote for Commons POTY to be Number 8, the Barred Owl. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 05:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flikzor Website[edit]

You have requested the speedy deletion of the Flikzor website I just created. I find this ironic for two reasons; For one, you have listed that the Flikzor site I created promotes Flikzor, when in fact I created the page in a rage caused by the fact that Flikzor is illegaly implying that there are a limited amount of user passes available. This brings me to my second point, which is that though I am enraged by the misleading message which caused me to register, I went out of my way to objectively report on the website. By all means, if you feel I am promoting the website in any way, shape, or form, rewrite my article, but I feel strongly that the illegal actions of this website should be reported.

Thank you for your time,

Michael O'Riley —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.165.84.149 (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If you want to report the "illegal actions" of this company, do it somewhere else. WP:NOT your blog. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 06:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. If there were a single sentence within my article that was not also a fact, I believe you would have a point here. Unfortunately, the fact that you have responded to my cordial critique with such extreme negative vigor leads me to believe that there are ulterior motives for said suggestion. Perhaps you are trying to add to your revision count to rise in the ranks beyond your objective peers? In any case, I will remain, as always, a reasonable person. If you indeed feel that my article promotes Flikzor, then so be it. In that respect, we can only agree to disagree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.165.84.149 (talk) 06:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Perhaps you caught me in a foul mood, but I have little patience for new pages on Wikipedia that don't follow the guidelines. Maybe every single sentence in the article you wrote is true, but you didn't cite your sources, so there wasn't really any way for me to know. There were no ulterior motives; and I wasn't the only one who thought the article was spam. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 13:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10,000[edit]

I posted this message to Luna Santin and Aviper2k7:

Did you read the message SeaWorld01/Starwars1955 left on his talk page before the message was removed (it's still in the history) and the page protected? Do you really believe that he has 10,000 accounts? I don't believe it, as I think it's a bluff. As you said, he should just give up: he is wasting everyone's time, including his own.

Do you think it's a bluff? How can anyone have 10,000 accounts? He is simply wasting his efforts here by doing all of this. Acalamari 22:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a bluff. As I said above, we should probably just ignore him, revert his edits when they appear, and an administrator will eventually come by and block the account. The more we discuss him, the more power he has; I say just forget him. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 03:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per this admin's request, I am notifying you of WP:RFAR action[edit]

Per this admin's request, I am notifying you of WP:RFAR action.

Even though I am not seeking the action against you, nonethheless, you are a party, and rules require that I notify you. Observe:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#GordonWatts

--GordonWatts 07:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Feare[edit]

Hi, just thought I'd let you know that Last Exit to Springfield has been promoted. Thanks for the help. I was also wondering if you would mind reviewing Cape Feare, which has been a GA nominee for quite some time. In fact, 4 Simpsons articles have been nominated and promoted during the time it's been a candidate. Thanks for the time, Scorpion 01:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that one has been sitting around for a LONG time! I hope I can get to it tomorrow for you. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 06:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you want, you could review Homer's Enemy or Homer Badman. ANd, Cape Feare is an FAC, so if you don't mind, any siggestions you have would be greatly appreciated. -- Scorpion 17:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for reviewing the articles. Your comments have proven extremely helpful and your reviews are MUCH appreciated. I have fixed up Homer's Enemy, although the B-story was a problem. I gave it a small paragraph near the beginning of the synopsis and mentioned that "later in the episode" the factory was destroyed. Take a look and see what you think. Also, the episode Trash of the Titans (which I was not involved with) was submitted for GA review, but if you would like to do it, please wait a day or so because I think the article needs some work. Once again, thanls for the time, Scorpion 20:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo. I enjoy working with you, you're a very curteous and hard-working Wikipedian. I might check out that article you mentioned as well, and I have added those Simpsons pages I reviewed to my watchlist, so we can finish up the work that needs to be done there. Keep up the good work! –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 20:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work[edit]

Nice one there Sherlock :)... I'll get to them this evening.--Isotope23 22:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Year Zero[edit]

I just wanted to thank you for doing such a fine job of policing the Year Zero article. I know what a huge part that this "viral marketing" phenomenon is to the album, but too many contributers are adding non-encyclopedic content, which does not belong here. Fortunately, most of it has not been malicious, just a misunderstanding of wikipedia's intent. Keep up the good work. –m.f ^{(t • c)} 17:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate that my hard work is recognized. =) –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 18:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to thank you for fixing problems so fast, and in the right manner. Nickoladze 20:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you too! I try my best. –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 21:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the revert on my userpage. Where'd that guy come from anyway? –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 16:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I wouldn't have a clue what he was on about. He wasn't very nice though; have a look at my deletion log. Hesperian 22:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA[edit]

Hi, there are a few Simpsons articles that are GACs - Trash of the Titans, Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire and [[Matt Groening - and it would be much appreciated if you could take a look at them. Thanks, Scorpion 17:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it right now. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 17:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed up Matt Groening with all of your suggestions and renominated it. -- Scorpion 19:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it as soon as I'm done reviewing Maria Rasputin. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 19:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War Alert.[edit]

King Bee, I have a nasty feeling that another war over the Michalkas is arising. Otto4711 blanked both the Alyson Michalka and Amanda Michalka articles, and turned them into re-directs to the Aly & AJ page. I thought I'd tell you about this. If he does it again, I'll ask an administrator. Acalamari 22:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to contact an administrator. Acalamari 23:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, if you're interested, here are the two discussions: 1 2. I was able to convince the user to talk as opposed to starting an edit war. Acalamari 00:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'll keep an eye on it. –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 05:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atoka, Oklahoma[edit]

Thanks for fixing the Atoka page. I was editing out the stupid stuff, but don't know the correct names to replace with.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.46.3 (talk • contribs)

Okay. –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 05:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

thanks for fixing the vandalisum from my page :} ♥Eternal Pink-ready for love and grace♥ 17:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. =) –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 17:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

...for reverting the vandalism to my page. That takes the cake/pizza for the oddest vandalism I've had so far.--Kubigula (talk) 04:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just doing my part. I love crazy vandalism...sort of. =) –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 04:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The time has come[edit]

Well we have another Simpsons GAC, The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show, and as you simply are the best reviewer I know, if (when you return from your break) give it a review it would be most appreciated! Thanks in advanced! Gran² 16:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well looks like someone else passed it. I'm sure they'll be another in a while though. Gran² 18:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here it is! Treehouse of Horror V. If you could maybe review it, it would be good. Gran² 12:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your help[edit]

Thanks for your help on the obscure little "Property B" page! :) Cjwiki 04:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa's Wedding[edit]

Another Simpsons episode is a GAC, so could you please take a look? -- Scorpion 00:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 3 Simpsons episode GACs and there are more coming. Gran and I are trying to get Season 8 to Featured topic status, so it will involve getting every single episode page to GA status. If you would like to help out, your assistance would be more than appreciated. -- Scorpion 18:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a dandy of an idea. I'll do what I can when I can. –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 20:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peano axioms up for A-class rating[edit]

Hello. The mathematics WikiProject has set up a process to grant articles that deserve it an A-class rating at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/A-class rating. Recently, our article on the Peano axioms was nominated. Unfortunately, there are no comments from anybody who really knows logic, so I was hoping that you could have a look at the article, see whether there is anything there that would embarrass us, and leave a comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/A-class rating/Peano axioms. Thanks. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 13:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same barnstar[edit]

Well you already have this one, but I couldn't find a more specific one, so here you are!

		The Original Barnstar
		For all of the fantastic GA reviews for The Simpsons related articles that you have done. I award you this, as well as the privilege of knowing that this is the first barnstar I've given anyone! Gran² 12:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey don't mention it! And that's good to hear! Gran² 21:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to add any sort of pressure, but we currently have 11 GACs and it would be great if you could take a look at a couple of them. Thanks! -- Scorpion 19:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Would you mind commenting here? They're thinking about re-opening that poll about the NFL infoboxes. Quadzilla99 22:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics CotW[edit]

Hey King, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 22:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GAC backlog elimination drive[edit]

This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 00:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:530 Saturday Morning.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:530 Saturday Morning.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.

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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:530 Saturday Morning.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:530 Saturday Morning.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, 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-no-disclaimers}} 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 04:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Animamina-thumb.jpg)[edit]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of '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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Mars Loves Venus.jpg)[edit]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of '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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radon-Nikodym theorem[edit]

Nonnegative measurable is not a weaker condition than integrability. Did you mean quasiintegrable (the integral exists but is not necessarily finite)? --Drizzd 14:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not weaker, but there do exist nonnegative measurable functions that are not integrable (and vice versa). Also, in nearly every text in which this appears as an exercise, the hypothesis I've seen is "nonnegative measurable." Feel free to change it if you wish; I was just going on what I knew. –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 22:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Biggest bluest hi fi.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Biggest bluest hi fi.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.

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 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 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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 01:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Album images[edit]

Betacommand response to your request was misleading (typical of him). It's perfectly legal to use album cover images on album articles. To wade off his bot, just add "Fair use rationale" section, see here for example. Grue 18:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if you're sure. Thanks for the advice. –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 13:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Cover Metropolis.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Cover Metropolis.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.

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 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 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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 21:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Cover Entertainment ARRCO.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Cover Entertainment ARRCO.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.

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 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 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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 21:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Cvr Career180.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Cvr Career180.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.

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 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 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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 23:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Underachievers please try harder.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Underachievers please try harder.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.

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 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 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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 15:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Lets get out of this country.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Lets get out of this country.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 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 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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 04:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:LureOfTheUnderground.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:LureOfTheUnderground.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 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 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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 04:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Historywillneverholdme.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Historywillneverholdme.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 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 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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 04:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sobers.gif[edit]

I have tagged Image:Sobers.gif as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Bigr Tex 20:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hot debate going on at Template talk:Infobox NFL player[edit]

Appreciated your valuable input during the last flame up at Template talk:Infobox NFL player. I was hoping you would weigh in on the current one. — x a n d e r e r 21:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Swords ST EP.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Swords ST EP.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 05:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ladytron-ExtendedPlay.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ladytron-ExtendedPlay.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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]