User talk:Gakrueger

Image tagging for Image:Craigcheffins.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Craigcheffins.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:John Roggeveen.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:John Roggeveen.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Roggeveen

Hi Gakrueger - I notice you removed the proposed deletion notice from John Roggeveen, which you are perfectly entitled to do. I was wondering if you might be willing to provide me with a rationale, though; I'm currently considering whether or not to take the article to articles for deletion, and your thoughts on why it shouldn't be deleted would be valuable to me in making that decision. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gakrueger - thanks for your response. As an initial heads-up, please note that new messages on talk pages generally go on the bottom. Unfortunately, because yours was on top, I didn't notice it until just now.

I understand where you're coming from on the Roggeveen article. However, I'm afraid that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are substantially against you on this point. For example, you raise the issue of fairness to all candidates, and I understand where you're coming from on that. But it's not Wikipedia's mandate to be fair to all candidates; that's the mandate of Elections Alberta and, to an extent Alberta media. Wikipedia isn't a campaign resource; it presents articles on subjects that are considered sufficiently notable. MLAs are considered automatically notable (per WP:BIO). Most other candidates just haven't gotten enough coverage in reliable sources to be notable. Moreover, please note that the aim of Wikipedia is to present neutral articles on the subjects that it covers, meaning that a Wikipedia article shouldn't necessarily be a boon to an electoral candidate, since it should cover both their good points and their bad points. Unfortunately, most articles on Alberta MLAs aren't yet very well-developed, but if you have a look at the Ed Stelmach article, I hope you'd agree that it's not something that's likely to unduly increase or decrease his support. Finally, with regards to your suggestion that the Roggeveen article should remain up at least during the campaign, the philosophy of Wikipedia is that if something deserves an article at one point, it continues to deserve an article forever. Put another way, something can't be notable just because it happens to be in the news at a given point in time.

There is now a discussion going on here; I'd urge you to take part. And please contact me (at the bottom of my talk page) if you have any more questions. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:John Roggeveen.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:John Roggeveen.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) 05:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]