User talk:Canadiana

If you leave me a message on this page, I will leave the reply here. Canadiana 23:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Disney rental tapes

Hey, Canadiana! If you happen to find any pre-1984 Disney videocassettes that were former rentals, please notify me and post the link! Make sure they're from eBay. --Ryanasaurus0077 21:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Pinocchio $79.95 price

You said that buyers of Pinocchio at $79.95 were mad when the price was to drop. Why were they mad? Weren't videocassettes expensive back then? --Imax80 21:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Disney said from the beginning that Pinocchio was available for a limited time only, and that it might not ever be available again.

People who normally didn't buy movies might have bought Pinocchio because it was possibly their only chance and they wanted to have it so their children could watch it; and later, their grandchildren. Even people who didn't have children and people who didn't have a VCR might have bought it because it might be their only chance. They were mad because they could have waited a few more months and saved $50.00 and still have had the movie to pass down to their grandchildren; and if they didn't have a VCR, getting the movie before the sale price started was of no benefit to them.

Stores that sold movies were mad because they might have bought extra copies to sell. When the movie is no longer being made and people can't find a copy anywhere, they really appreciate a store that has some to sell. The problem is that those stores probably spent about $67.00 wholesale for each copy and only 1 ½ months later they found out that they were mow only worth $29.95, so they would have to sell them for much less than they paid for them.

Rental stores were also very unhappy because they found out that the price was going down only six weeks after the movie first came out and they hadn't even rented it enough times yet to pay for the cassette.

The first two groups were able to send the movie back to Disney and get a refund, but the last group was out of luck. Disney never did anything quite like this again, and I think other studios also learned from this. After this, most movies were put on moratorium long enough for all of the unsold copies to be sold before a sale price or permanent price drop began. (I have to learn to write shorter posts.) Canadiana 02:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe this is why I didn't hear anything about Robin Hood being a decent seller in 1984/1985. Robin Hood was $79.95 in 1984 and 1985, and during the X-Mas promo, it was $29.95 like all the other cassettes available. I wonder how Dumbo and Alice in Wonderland did back when they were made for sale. --Imax80 22:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Promotion

Weren't any Disney videos promoted by any fast food chains like Burger King or McDonalds? The earliest cross-promo I saw was the Crest give-away for the 1989 Bambi video release. --Imax80 22:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I've been writing too much in talk pages and not enough in the articles, but you'll see the answer in one the Disney articles by the end of the weekend. Canadiana 02:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Greber Boulevard

Thanks for that. Yeah, the three Park and Rides that I made referenced which are Les Promenades (at les Promenades de l'Outaouais), Pierre-Lafontaine on a side side one block east of Greber and one block south of les Promenades as well as Greber/St-Louis are still in operation according to the STO site. The third one was done as a temporary park and ride I think during the construction on Maisonneuve Boulevard in 2004. However, it seems they made it permanent.

The only thing that I will have to check is the exact names of the strip malls in the vicinity of les Promenades. --JForget 21:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

For Walt Disney Classics

I started adding release info under the titles. Do think this will make a better article? BTW, when are ou going to upload the pictures of Robin Hood and The Sword in the Stone into the article? --Imax80 23:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that having the info is good. I think that having it in the list is bad. It cuts things up too much and makes it hard to read. It also makes it hard to follow the "story" because it breaks it up into title-by-title pieces. I think it's better chronologically (ordered by date). I'm going to upload my first version of the whole thing tonight before I go to bed. More details will be added later. I'm not putting any more pictures up until I get the basic story up. Canadiana 01:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I ran out of time, but the "prehistory" section I did add should at least tell you why Dumbo and Alice in Wonderland were not considered Classics at the beginning. Canadiana 05:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That's okay, I expanded it a bit. Hope you like it. --Imax80 23:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's shaping up into a real article. It needs a lot of work and somne big changes are still to come, but it's a good start. I separated the one sectioln into two. It may end up a bit different once most of the info is there.

You have to avoid any speculation in the article (sentences with "perhaps", "maybe", "could be" are a sure sign of this). You can think these things, but you can't put them into the article unless you have proof or unless you are talking about someone else (someone specific) thinking these things. I'll add some more tomorrow if I get time and expand some of what you did also. Canadiana 05:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Black Cauldron

I have several things about it being suspended from video release. Maybe this is because Disney was still worried about their PG-movie policy. I remember reading something that teens during the 1980s were all saying things like,"Disney movies are just for kids." Disney tried to reach the teens with The Black Cauldron. It wasn't on video until 1998. Do you have any info on the circulation of the film outside of theatrical business? --Imax80 22:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they're worried too much about the PG anymore, but they don't want to scare little kids who might not think it was as scary as it is, and they don't want to "scare away" older kids who might think anything from Disney is childish. It's a difficult film to market, since it doesn't fit the usual categories. I don't know if it's "suspended" exactly. Maybe they are planning a new special edition. You never know. The first release sold about 4.5 million copies; not too bad for a "flop" film, really. Canadiana 05:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Tregoweth wants Sources on Walt Disney Classics

Read the article and see all the citation bars. Also, when are the pictures of Robin Hood and Sword going to be submitted to the article? I could take a photo of my Dumbo and Pinocchio videos. BTW, check my suer page and see my collection that I expanded. --Imax80 02:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not just me; it's the whole Wikipedia thing of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. (Also, I'm not stalking anyone; this page was still on my watchlist, and I saw my name fly by. :) ) —tregoweth (talk) 02:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware that the article needs citations. I do have references for all of the statements I have added that are so marked. My current strategy is to try to get the framework of the text out as quickly as possible (hopefully to help discourage vandalism) and to add citations and more details once the text is up. I've been away the last four days, but I will be slowly added more text as well as citations the next new days.

As for the pictures, I want to get the basic text up first. My Sword cover is very faded on the front, so I'd have to mainly stick to showing the spine. Canadiana 06:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

== Turkish cross-links

I noticed that you were recently asking an admin to add a cross-link to a Turkish article. Normally, you should be able to do this yourself (unless the article is fully pro ==

I noticed that you were recently asking an admin to add a cross-link to a Turkish article. Normally, you should be able to do this yourself (unless the article is fully protected). Just hit edit and scroll down the the very bottom and insert your link in the alphabetically appropriate place. Canadiana 21:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) Actually it was fully protected, once the protection was removed i added the link. cheers, --Nerval 22:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Name

I'm aware of the problem of naming the Project. Would you be intersested in joining such a projest? It could be renamed later; the name isn't permanent. You may have noticed in my talk page I, among other people, have been trying to think of a name. The problem, as you pointed out, is how to include Canada and exlude Mexico and other Central American countries because they have much different leauge structures and status. We could use someone who knows about Canadian soccer. XYZ CrVo 21:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't say I'm a soccer expert, but I'd be willing to join. My soccer interest swings up and down wildly between World Cup finals, but the new Toronto team and the FIFA Under 20 World Cup may help keep my interest over the next year. Canadiana 01:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects if you want to be a part of WikiProject Football(soccer) in the USA and Canada. The page is still under construction. Still searching for a name. XYZ CrVo 02:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that the term USA can't be in the project title. The Football(soccer) portion of the title will have to remain the same as some people detest the term "soccer." XYZ CrVo 22:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that many people detest it, not the least those from the United Kingdom, which is somewhat ironic, since the word "soccer" originated in the UK as University of Oxford slang (see also Oxford "-er"). Canadiana 22:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The page for WP Soccer and America User:XYZ CrVo/WikiProject Football (soccer) in the USA and Canada is up and running,

but still in its beginning stages. Please leave any comments on the talk page of the project. I realize that the name is ridiculously long. It almost takes up a line in this comment! XYZ CrVo 02:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

HI-FI

I meant to say "First Classics release to use it" because I happen to have a 20,000 Leagues video from 1985, and it says HI-Fi on it I think. --Imax80 20:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• I did go around eBay and some videos say "VHS-STEREO" or "BETA-STEREO." But this doesn't mean HI-FI, does it? The back of the Sleeping Beauty case says "Digitally Proccessed HI-FI" because later videos say "Digitally Mastered." --Imax80 21:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The original VHS Stereo was not hi-fi. Beta Stereo is always Beta hi-fi. After Beta hi-fi, VHS made their own version using a different method and called theirs VHS hi-fi. I think that "digitally processed" and "digitally mastered" might be two names for the same thing. I can't see how they would actually be different. Canadiana 22:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Fotomat Title Question

I just won a Beta tape of "Pete's Dragon" off of eBay, and the seller says the runtime is 105 minutes. According to Ryanasuarus0077, the March 1980 Fotomat version has that runtime. What release it? --Imax80 21:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The Pete's Dragon article says that there were two different lengths of movie released in 1980. It could be right. I didn't know that before. I'll have to check my copy when I get home tonight. Canadiana 22:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

So when was my copy released? Is it the Fotomat version? --Imax80 01:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but if it's really 105 minutes, I think it's probably the original version. Mine is 128 minutes and is a "Duplicated in Canada" copy. Interestingly, it doesn't have a release number, so if it's the second release, it's the first time I've ever seen a second release with no release number on the cover. I know it's one of the oldest Disney tapes I have because it doesn't have NTSC written on the bottom of the spine (so it probably comes from before Disney started making PAL tapes). I only have two tapes like that and the other one, Bedknobs and Broomsticks is a former "rental only", so it's probably one from the "Fotomat" era, or right after. I'll be interested to know if your copy has a "Used Rental Cassette" sticker. Canadiana 03:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

My early 1980s copies of Davy Crockett and the River Pirates, Dumbo, and Alice in Wonderland don't have a release number on the back either, so they were probably 027-1, 024-1, 036-1. However, my 1983 Tex video has it, maybe they started in 1983. Well, once I get Pete's Dragon in the mail, I'll tell you whats on it. But Fotomat copies are extinct, I wonder how somebody could ever get their hands on one. Maybe the seller ran a rental store back in 1980. I think the seller is from Texas, so it was part of their 4-city test, I'll check my eBay. --Imax80 15:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The highest stock number I've seen without a release number is #67 (The Devil and Max Devlin). The lowest one I seen with a "-1" is #58 (That Darn Cat). The numbers were not given out in order by this time and I don't have exact dates, but this is sometime in 1983 as you say.

All the copies that Fotomat and other rental dealers had under the rental plan had to be given back at the end of the rental period. Disney checked them for defects and if they were okay, repackaged them in a sale-only cover and sold them. I remember that it cost $20-$30 for a blank tape at one time, so they wouldn't want to just trash them.

The other way to get one would be if a store essentially stole it and refused to give it back to Disney. The Winnie the Pooh in the blue case in the WDHV article would be one of those. Canadiana 19:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Logos

Every Disney video has an animated intro. Many fanboys are trying to get the history of these logos of when they debuted on cassettes. All I know is the first animated intro was shown in 1978 on the DiscoVision releases, it's the "Walt Disney Home Entertainment" one with the spinning Mickey. A variant of this existed on 1983-84 Cartoon Classics tapes where the screen would rotate to a different WDHV logo that flashes.

The logo was then turned into "Walt Disney Home Video" in 1984, because the division was named "HOME VIDEO" so it made more sense. At the same time, the "Classics" logo was shown on tapes from 1984 to 1987.

Then in maybe October 1986, the Sorcerer Mickey version was introduced. Do you know when this one was introduced?

Also, did any of these logos appear on the promos? I saw the original one in the "Walt Disney and You" promo. --Imax80 19:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know much about the logos and, to tell you the truth, I don't care very much about when each logo was introduced, at least not right now. It's too hard to look at every tape to compare them, and actually impossible because I don't have every tape. Canadiana 22:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Walt Disney Home Entertainment expansion

This discussion has been moved to Talk:List of Walt Disney video releases to make it easier to follow. Canadiana 16:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I need to archive my talk page

It's getting too long and full of arugements. Can you help me make an archive? --Imax80 18:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

My computer stopped working properly in mid-December, so I'm trying to get caught up again now. I did your archive for you. Canadiana 05:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Release Dates

I remember you wrote that the original video release of The Little Mermaid had been sold by rackjobbers 2 days before actual release.

Well, I noticed when Finding Nemo was nearing release in the fall of 2003, I noticed on October 31, 2003, my rental sotre already had copies. Also, the same thing happened in ealry March 2005 before the release date of The Incredibles. I ended up getting that copy beore the March 15 release.

Do you know if the whole NAAD/rackjobbers thing was the case of this? --Imax80 22:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the thing with a different actual release date from the NAAD changed in the 1990s. It could be that your store broke the street date. There was a case where a store in Walt Disney World accidentally sold some big release a month before it was supposed to be out. Canadiana 01:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Something Very rare I Got

I bid on the original 1985 video relase of Pinocchio, and I also got something very cool with it. It's a rougly 10 minute videocassette that is a Preview/Sales Tape. It has several ads for the Pinocchio release, the facts about the $1,000,000 advertising campaign, how it did in the 1984 re-release, interviews with people who saw it (A Classics diamond was on the microphone), and it has full mention of The Classics banner, and stating that Robin Hood was one of the 15 best-selling videocassettes of all time.

Did you ever see this? --Imax80 20:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That is cool. No, I've never seen it. It would be nice to see. Canadiana 01:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I watched it again, and it is amazing. I'll try to post it on Youtube, but I am still figuring out how my camera works. I got it off of eBay, perhaps one may come on again, or maybe that was only one of the existing copies left. Do you think this is worth something? --Imax80 19:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's only worth something if someone wants to buy it. I'm really not sure if people are looking for that sort of thing. I'm sure someone somewhere probably is. Canadiana 00:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Strange

At a store today, I got the 1991 video of The Jungle Book, but in a cardboard slipsleeve that looked kinda cheap. The video has a black silk-screened label on it, no print date, but it has the FBI warnings/previews/film. Is this a bootleg copy? --Imax80 20:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm 99.9% sure that The Jungle Book has never been sold in a cardboard slipsleeve, so either the video has been put into a different sleeve or else the entire thing is a bootleg. Canadiana 22:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a bootleg, because you know those square things on the bottom of the cassette on the left? Well it's covered, so it's a blank tape that must have ripped from the actual video release. The black label is also kind of cheap as well. --Imax80 00:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The "record protect" tab? A real tape wouldn't have tape covering the hole. There is actually a black label, like a sticker? That's definitely suspicious. Sometimes when they duplicated too many copies of something, they erased the returned or overstocked tapes and duplicated new movies onto them, but I can't remember if there was ever a black sticker. Canadiana 03:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's the record protect tab. Also, the label is just like those silk-screened labels they use on most videocassettes, the label is black, yes. I played the actual movie, and the movie was in good quality, but the sound was a bit faded, and the picture is not it's original form, it's somewhat zoomed in a bit. --Imax80 17:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

1984 Mini Catalog

I finally got it. I remember you telling me about it. I got this with my copy of "The Boatniks", which is, I believe, from late 1984, because it uses the different font for "HOME VIDEO" and not the Handel Gothic font. The cover is gold, and Tron and Tex are on the first 2 pages. I also says Dumbo won an ITA Golden Videocassette Award. What was that? --Imax80 00:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It was like a "gold record" award. (They still have those don't they?) The International Tape/Disc Association gave them for achieving a certain level of sales. I think it the gold tape was something like 50,000 copies at that time. Canadiana 04:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Mary Poppins also won the award too, it's featured on the very back. --Imax80 17:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Robin Hood question

I am trying to find out when the second printing of the 1990s Robin Hood print actually hit markets. The first version has advertisements on it for "The Jungle Book" and "The Rescuers Down Under", while the other tape has no previews at all. Do you now when this variant hit stores? I think it was somewhere around very late 1991 or early 1992. --Imax80 19:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I know the relesse date to that question! It actually came out November.1,1991 and same with The Rescuers Down Under with green FBI Screens! You know why I found out about that? Because, Fantasia was relessed on November.1,1991, and it had no previews so they did the same to RH and TRDU, but RH and TRDU used the green ones, and speaking of Green FBI Screens, the Fantasia print with green screens and the scrolling FP logo actually came out in 1991 because the earliest printing of 101 Dalmatians was in November of 1991 because, usually it takes 3-5 months. After that copy came out, Fantasia went out of print December 1991! And on The Robin Hood prints that use green FBI screens weren on sale from 1991-1994 and then dropped out of print and same with the other copy because, your copy of The Sword in the Stone classics video was printed in 1994 and it used the Red FBI Warnings. So Robin Hood both had those copies from 1991-1994 and then dropped out of print in 1994 when the Masterpiece Collection of Robin Hood came out! And About that Fantasia print I told you about, well Cooper 20 has those prints! One with 1984 FBI screens and 1989 classics logo, and the other with 1991 FBI screens, Trailer of BATB, 1991 Scrolling FP logo, and the 1989 classics logo! And I Hope this answers your questions! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.116.225 (talk)

As far as I know, there is no way to verify when tapes with different ads were duplicated, and I'm really not that interested in this. Videotapes are not "printed", they are duplicated in small batches of a few hundred at a time at most. Assuming that the master tape for the ads and the master tape for the movie are on two separate tapes, it is very possible to change the ads, previews, etc., at any time.

For the anonymous poster, the actual last day of orders for Fantasia in Canada and the U.S. was January 13, 1992. Disney advertised it as being available for 50 "business days" so they didn't count weekends. Disney stopped accepting orders for Fantasia shortly after the November 1 street date and it was reported on December 14 in Billboard that they had almost caught up on the back orders and might start accepting new orders again in one or two weeks. Canadiana 12:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I say it's September 20, 1991 'cause Jungle Book was one of trailers on Robin Hood, but was already out on VHS. Rescuers Down Under was another preview offered on Robin Hood and was coming soon. So, when Rescuers Down Under came out, Robin Hood was still in progression of editing and they decided to cut the previews out of there, replace the FBI warnings with new green one's because they had to and replace the cut-short 1989 WDC logo with the older 1988 logo, because it was the only one available at the moment. Skymac207 24:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Re-dubbed Disney Movies?

Hello, I have recieved the 1994 Masterpiece Collection edition of "Robin Hood" and I noticed that some scenes of audio were slighlty re-dubbed. For example, before Kluck faces off the rhinos, a cymbal crash is heard. Now none of my other copies prior to this release have that. Also, there are some scenes of added voices on some scenes.

Could this be that the earlier prints were not really the original theatrical release, and the 1994 version and so forth really is? --Imax80 20:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It is very possible that they went back to a different film master print to make the new Masterpiece Collection edition. When they first started putting the word "masterpiece" on packaging, they had a kind of rule that only restored movies could have the word "masterpiece" and unrestored ones wouldn't. When the Masterpiece Collection came out and everything became a masterpiece, I'm not sure they continued to do that.

As for what was the original theatrical release, it is very hard to say. One complication is that there were often several different versions made for some films. A mono version might have a slightly different soundtrack than the stereo version. I think Robin Hood was made in mono, though, so if the Masterpiece Collection version is stereo, they would have had to artificially produce that from whatever masters they had.

Sorry for taking so long to answer, but I have very little time to spend on Wikipedia these days. Canadiana 13:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Tulips and suffixes

Hm. I'm entirely open to the idea that I'm confused about Canadian usage of -ise vs. -ize, and defer to your, and Canadian newspapers', style. It strikes me as odd nevertheless; perhaps I'll try to find some more information on the two different spellings. As to the name of the article, I cannot say that I have any opinion, other than that if there is even the slightest bit of evidence that the festival has a real name that we can use instead of our paranthetical disambiguation, we should go with that. Jkelly 17:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Collector's Value

I have a number of vhs new shrink wrapped Disney Classics and Masterpieces. Some of these contain the stock numbers listed on pages here. How do I find out how much they are worth? Any help is appreciated.

Aurora14 16:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Question about "Cinderella"

Do you have a link that shows the 1988 VHS of "Cinderella" being sold for the first time, which also included the 1988 re-prints of "Dumbo", "Alice in Wonderland", etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.97.19 (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kidnapped on DiscoVision.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kidnapped on DiscoVision.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) 17:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

hi

Hi. I found you in the category of users who can contribute in English and Portuguese. I myself am a native speaker of English, but I'm well on my way to learning Portuguese. Just check out my user page and talk page, and join in any of the discussions. To keep updated, you can even put a watch on my user page, which will automatically watch my talk page. :-) learnportuguese (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Video disc cover

Template:Video disc cover has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Disney rental and sale tapes.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Disney rental and sale tapes.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Toronto zoo logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Toronto zoo logo.png. 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Canadiana. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Canadian Tulip Festival logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Canadian Tulip Festival logo.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Canadiana. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)