User talk:Teddythetank/Archive 1

This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

simcity

It was also built without the expantion pack, which means my traffic planning is pants and i'm not getting additional revenue from road tolls. I've got an airport on one of my newer cities.... I've never quite been won over by it, the police chopper stays over one corner 100% of the time which is no fun. --BesigedB ^(talk) 16:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the police chopper that hovers over the corner of either an airport, the University, country club, et cetera, I haven't quite figured that out. I know the advisor screams at you ("This locale is swarming with criminal activity. Build a police station now!"), and despite building a police station right next to it, the chopper doesn't cease. Oh well, it's a fun game. --Ted 01:43, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism art?

Couldn't the vandals be more creative with their vandalism art? --Ted 06:57, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Be more specific. I, myself, am a former vandal of the Bush article. I think I pushed the administrators to their limits enough, so I quit. My style was to replace Bush picture with Jar Jar Binks or Palpatine from Star Wars. I, along with a few of my collegues, held the administrators up for three days straight. At one point, we were even able to make around 50 edits in 45 minutes. Yeah, I would say we kept them on their toes. Using sock puppetts, we were able to continuously vandalise. To my happiness, I forced them to reconsider and change their policy, which was my goal from the beginning. The situation was, and I blatantly told them of this, that: they either block the page, thus preventing the wikipedia "anyone can edit" policy, or not protect the page, and allow us to continue our vandal streak. They were stuck between a rock and a hard place, so to speak. In the end, I won of course, despite my constant warnings to the administrators. Actually, I won on both sides for a while. Not only did they protect the page, they changed, and heavily discussed their policy for several days. I was still allowed, or got away with vandalizing for quite a while, until I faced a year-long ban. I had my fun while it lasted, and got to play around with the higher powers for a while, all while playing it safe. I kept a couple of accounts, one for serious edits, and others for vandalism. In the end, through multiple discussions with the administrators, I was able to keep my serious account, and they caught on to my ideas. You want to talk about vandal art? That was vandal art in its highest degree. Adamwankenobi 02:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well I was looking for vandalism that was witty and crafty with the usage of humor. That sort of pastime would require a lot of free time on someone's part. --Ted 23:22, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Confused

G'day, Ted,

I must confess to some confusion as to your reversion of my attempt at dealing with a rather silly addition to the indentured servant stream. You admit, nay, proudly boast to vandalising articles you do not like, yet display a typically Seppo lack of humor at others. My point was simply that the paragraph about very well paid(cf: qld health web site) doctors has absolutely no place in an article about 19th century employment practices. If you are such a pedant, why didn't you remove the entire ridiculous stream?

Regards, DylanThomas.

Hmm, I suppose I overlooked the "rather silly addition" that you are talking about. I am not a pedant, but the article was on my watch page. I couldn't help to notice that somebody posted an edit to that article, and I found that you added a witty comment about so-called "indentured servants" earning $100,000 annually. I actually laughed at that. At the same time, being such a Pedant (with a capital P), I know that Wikipedia is supposed to be (in theory), a open-knowledge, Non-Point-Of-View depository of information.

You claim that I "boast" to vandalizing articles that I do not like. As far as I know, I haven't vandalized any articles on Wikipedia. I thought about putting some time into making some humorous witty edits to some controversial articles, but I would know that those edits would be reversed quickly, and would seem to be counter-productive in the end.

To be honest, I did not notice the addition you were talking about in respect to well-paid doctors being out of place in the Indentured Servitude article. But thank you for pointing it out. I shall remove the entire ridiculous stream, because my common sense tells me that it has no place in that article. Further, I shall find out who made that ridiculous addition and chastise them for doing that, just like what I did to Gene Mosher for his suggestion that the French Fry Girl was invited to incriminate against herself for possessing drugs.

But anywho, it was nice reading your post to my talk page. I speak American English and you almost lost me with some of those words (e.g. pedant, Seppo). I still haven't figured out what Seppo means. Oh well. (Ted 16:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

G'Day Ted,

Thank you for your balanced and restrained reaction to my rush-of-blood-to-the-head. The removal of the offending paragraph was top of my list, not because of parochialism- I am a Queenslander, (and I know our health system is stuffed), but because I find Wikipedia an unerringly useful source of facts. I am new to editing the content, and assumed you were the author of the offending text. Rather than delete, my first reaction is a rather Australian retreat into sarcasm. Sorry again, but I have learned something about the machinations of the beast. Maybe I can continue to contribute. For the sake of clarity, pedant & it's derivatives are in common use in Australia, & you have obviously got a handle on it. Seppo has it's roots in cockney rhyming slang, which we picked up on and bastardised big time. Seppo, as in septic tank, as in yank! I know it's tenuous, but I rather suspect that is part of the charm. Anyway, it has a certain frission with your handle, no?

Regards, Dylan.

Image copyright problem with Image:ALHS_DSM3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ALHS_DSM3.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. -- Carnildo 08:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maculinist Comments

Appreciate your questioning the origins of my original entry. I really hadn't finished, but you did help me look at what I had written more thoroughly from the reader's perspective. I have inserted references, further clarifications, and much new data where it seemed appropriate. I suggest you reexamine BOTH of my entries - I have added another addressing feminism's pay inequality assertins much lower on the page. You may also find knowing something about my background helpful. I'm not pleased with the latter, but it does tell you something were my analyses come from.

Finally, I ask you to remove the disclaimer you inserted at the top of the masulinism page. Thanks for your interest and contributions... and I do meant it. --DougBaker 00:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As posted on User talk:DougBaker (apparently directed at me for my Noncompliance tagging of the Masculism article)

Herostratus: Why do you have the warning about non-compliance with your standards on the masculinist's
(I submit that is a better choice for a label, derived from mansculine), but not on the feminist's (which
is derived from feminine) page. I have been studying feminism in depth for several years now, and can
assure you that there is absolutely no gender-balanced scientific or holistic empirical evidence to support
any of the movement's positions; they are all, at best, one-sided partial truths. From the first paragraph
of that the article on feminism onward, I can point to repeated factual falsehoods and distortions of
history and modern reality.

For example, modern feminism is not continguous with the Women's Sufferage Movement. Nor did it flow from
Prohibtion, which modern feminists fail to mention was also primarily a female-activist-driven campaign
that lead to unfortunate consequences and failure. There was a 30-40 year gap in which any such widely
popular movements did not exist, and so claiming only creates the illusion of historic legitimacy that
simply did not exist. The entry is also dominated by content that is inherently prejudiced against males
and biased in favor of females. Filling a document with lots of citations from other "experts" who share
the same prejudices and biases represents nothing more than one group's consensus speculations and
assumptions. Does popular opinion, whether that of a powerful group of academics or the public-at-large,
equate to the same thing as scientific facts? Do such interpretations of reality define philosophic truth?

It is request that the warning be removed - or at least exempt both of my entries in some equally obvious
way. What I have written has citations where I feel they are truly warranted, and the rest simply draws
upon commnon knowledge available within any of the specialized fields I call upon. And I challange you to
point out any instances of one-sided commentary or analysis. Both of my entries do nothing but describe
how the sexes are inherently equal in every underlying fundamental respect
(i.e. basic characteristics/attributes) - as well as share different but still similar and off-setting
qualities and traits.

Another alternative - assuming you don't believe my additions are either fully objective and credible -
would of course be to put exactly the same warning at the top all of the feminist based entries, as well
as masculinist related topics. While I believe most of the content I have read in the masculinist's piece
are reasonably accurate, it is written from a male's perspective and there is a subtle "emotional" tone
that seems to come through in most of the entries. On the other hand, the feminist entry is loaded with
the "realitistic" intellectual manipulations now common in academic writing; tactics designed to givethe
impression of objectivity while "soft-selling" one's personal point-of-view. The best brief example I can
think of is the common use of qualifiers like "some, many, and most" when the author wants to take a
position and pursuade, but does not have actual data to support their argument, and s/he wants to minimize
criticism.

Please advise. Feel free to email me if more convenient.

Regards, Doug Baker

Doug,

I glanced at your recent revisions and they seem satisfactory. It is in my interest to see that the article, to some extent, be expanded to represent all points of view (and not be loaded with biased academic opinion, an interesting point that you brought up). I removed the {{Noncompliance}} tag from the article page, and posted other tags on the talk page, as there are some bugs that ought to be discussed and cleared out (i.e. that "misogynist" comment in the first paragraph). As for citing sources, it is important that editors should avoid weasel words, unless they can actually provide hyperlinks or references to web-sites/publications that support those views that are held by some social group.

Anywho, thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. I assure you I was acting in good faith when I disagreed with some of the assertions made on the article (i.e. I was NOT attacking you or your contributions specifically).

Signed --Ted 06:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MARTA

Thank you for reviewing my edits to the Atlanta article, specifically the Transportation section. You helped clarify the differences on the two reports that I cited, but you removed the mention of Lewis Black's opinion on MARTA. The opening track on his album, End of the Universe (which was recorded in front of a live audience in Atlanta), he talked about the traffic problems in Atlanta. His "crude" comments, although insightful, are notable (IMHO) and ought to be mentioned in the article about MARTA. Hence, I restored this piece on the article about MARTA (not directly on the Atlanta article). I just wanted to make sure you were aware of this, and to provide you with an opportunity to form consensus, or to refute. --Ted 01:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ted.

Thanks for your note. The truth is that I want to think more, and inform myself more, before giving you a proper reply. Still, I want to let you know that I've read your note and that I intend to send you further thoughts on the matter. That may be tomorrow or later this week. If, in the mean time, you restore your bit about about Black, I'm not necessarily going to cut it out again; as I said, I want to consider your argument. Anyway, no guarantees yet, either way, about what I'll conclude—and, obviously, my conclusion isn't the only one that matters.

Until soon. President Lethe 04:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Let me know when you have given it further thought. --Ted 16:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Veishea2006.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Veishea2006.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

I'll see if I can get a better picture and I'll repost it on the Commons. --Ted 21:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About AntiWikipedia

It puzzles me the reason of your bias against AntiWikipedia. You've obviously made a personal matter to include comments into the page about to be deleted. Including even the error message displayed at their own site. Even though is not of my business, I would like to get some insight into your beliefs and attitude towards AntiWikipedia since I happen to agree with their mission.BrandNew21 12:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot, you caught me in the act. I suppose I made a POV edit to a POV edit. My personal matter in regards to beliefs and attitude towards Antiwikipedia, if any, is that the interface is sloppy. To prove my point, that page is extremely sloppy. Whoever designed the layout of that page could have incorporated some page breakers, as opposed to using three or five hyphens to separate the different versions of a page.

Interesting to note that you linked my IP address to my userpage on Wikipedia. You are holding me accountable for creating the "Poop" article. Not exactly the opposite of Wikipedia, now is it? Or are you suggesting that there is absolutely no accountability on Wikipedia? --Ted 20:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kent-Meridian High School

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent-Meridian High School, I just thought you'd like to know that the consensus for High School articles now appears to be swinging back in favor of deletion. So this may indicate the beginning of another campaign to remove most High School articles. Your opinion on the AfD article would be appreciated. It might be helpful if a notability standard for High Schools could be agreed upon. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:MichaelRosenbaum001.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MichaelRosenbaum001.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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 21:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Iowa

Hello, I noticed that you edited an article related to, or expressed interest in Iowa. Therefore, I was wondering if you would be interested in joining (proposed) WikiProject Iowa? If so, please add your name to "Interested Wikipedians" at Proposed WikiProject Iowa --Tim4christ17 03:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject has been created. Feel free to join it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Iowa.

Collapse of the World Trade Center

Sorry about that revision. I wanted to revert a particular section, not the section that you had modified. I could have taken a little more time to fix it better, but I just go lazy. Sorry again.--SweetNeo85 06:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidate review: Buffy article

Hi

Just letting WikiProject Buffyverse members know that the article 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' has recently been nominated as a candidate to become a featured article. Should it become a featured article, it will be possible for the article to appear on the Wikipedia main page on March 10th 2007, the 10th anniversary of Buffy (the premiere, "Welcome to the Hellmouth" aired March 10th 1997).

Any feedback you can offer to improve the article and/or to either object or support the nomination would be wonderful:

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buffy the Vampire Slayer

-- Paxomen 17:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ALHS DSM3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ALHS DSM3.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. MECU≈talk 22:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:DMPS logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:DMPS logo.png. 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)} 17:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:DMPS logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:DMPS logo.png. 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 17:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What?

what are you talking about, I am not new at wikipedia and i cleaned up the Mike Jones, i didnt really remove any content Bazel 21:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Pfg logo.gif

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Pfg logo.gif. 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 06:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:TheOC Trey Atwood 001.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:TheOC Trey Atwood 001.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ejfetters 12:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lost S02E21 Report.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lost S02E21 Report.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) 17:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lost S02E22 CuteLady.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lost S02E22 CuteLady.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) 17:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lost S02E22 InstantMessage.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lost S02E22 InstantMessage.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) 17:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lost S02E22 OtherCamp.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lost S02E22 OtherCamp.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) 17:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:TES4.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:TES4.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ames Straw Poll Ballot.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:MatthewKoso001.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:MatthewKoso001.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:MatthewKoso001.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:MatthewKoso001.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. NotifyBot (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]