User talk:PatrickJ83

Image copyright problem with Image:Harlow_resized.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Harlow_resized.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright 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 User talk:Carnildo/images. 16:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Harlow 1932.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Harlow 1932.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified 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 media 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 qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then 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 media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images 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 Image legality questions page. Thank you. Rossrs 12:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Patrick, I'm sure this is going to be easy to fix. As per the "no source" box, it simply says that the source needs to be provided. This is, if you downloaded this from another website you need to state so in the image description page and provide a link to the site. If you can also identify who owns the copyright, all the better, but the main thing is showing where it came from so that others can determine whether the use is fair or not. If you're not sure what to do let me know. Thanks Rossrs 11:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've added the link to the image description page and removed the "no source" tag. The image is very unusual - I like it. Rossrs 08:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no problem. if you could find who owns the copyright and record that also it would be great. very nice image, I must say! Rossrs 07:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it will do, but if you ever happen upon further information about the image you could add it. You are obviously a fan, and obviously you look at other material about her so there's a good chance you might one day see something about it, in which case you could update the image description page, but yes, I think it's ok as it is for now. Rossrs 07:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie Minogue

I removed the three fields you added because:

There are NPOV concerns with those sections, as is noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines.
I originally added the infobox with the "notable songs" and "albums", but they were later removed because as I see now, they are in violation of Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view policy. -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 02:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia neutral point-of-view policy says that The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Her most notable albums and songs can be disputed, thus it's not Wikipedia's place to select some songs/albums over others. Thanks for explaining your position, and I encourage you to argue your point further at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines, where there's a debate on whether those fields should be removed from the infobox. -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 02:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna article

Hi

After reading your comments on her disccusion page, if you feel the article needs improving - which I agree with! - then you can vote for it on the Article Improvement Drive (AID). Click on the link and add your details (it gives info on how to vote at the top of the page). Rimmers 20:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna (entertainer) at www.myspace.com: What's your information that [1] is more of a fanpage then [2]? In my opinion there both as official as [3] and all three are probably run by the same people judging from the content and blog entries. www.madonna.com linked to www.myspace.com/madonnamyspace in their news on "8 november 2005" (see their news archive). Bisco 16:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Some more points in response to your answer: 1. /madonnamyspace has an statement on the page that it is "the official madonna@myspace profile" (left side, under the banner pictures). I think official madonna staff would ban this site if it was making false claims. 2. As I said above: madonna.com promoted /madonnamyspace by linking to it. And as far as I know it was the only place to hear "Madonna confessing". I'm assuming these 3 audio files are from official sources (otherwise madonna.com wouldn't have promoted them). Why would these official sources put the files on a fansite instead of one of their official sites madonna.com or /madonna? 3. My ideas on why there are 2 sites: /madonna is part of "myspace music" - see the horizontal "music bar" on top of the page. It's meant for the musical project "Madonna". Whereas /madonnamyspace has been established to be a more "personal profile", therefore the slightly gossipy blogs and why it joined groups. Bisco 03:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- One more: On 25 April 2006 madonna.com announced the new single, the message in their news starting with the line: "Us, at Madonna.com, are happy to confirm...". The next day /madonnamyspace posted almost the same message starting with: "Us, at Madonna.com and Madonna-Myspace, are happy to confirm..." - this suggests to me (as I mentioned above) that both pages are run by the same people (unless /madonnamyspace is making false claims). Bisco 17:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course the easiest way to find out for sure should be to contact madonna.com and ask. Bisco 17:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Hey Blondie... Patrick..... don't worry, it had me stumped at first too. Click on "history". Select the version you want by clicking on the date/time link. It will open the page at the version for that time and date. Click "edit this page" and it comes up with the normal edit window with a warning that you are about to save an old version. Save it and it will become the "current" version again. Soon you'll be reverting with the best of them and thwarting vandals at every turn. Happy editing. Cheers Rossrs 08:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Harlow

Hey Patrick. I don't think there is a hard-and-fast rule about how the biographies are set out. I think it's great that you are fixing the Harlow article by the way - nothing but applause from me on that score. The way Marilyn Monroe is set out, isn't bad. It depends on how much you want to say about the marriages. For example I did the Vivien Leigh article so that her two marriages, plus one "living together" relationship were fitted into the overall discussion of her life and the whole thing is basically chronological. That was because in that case, I thought the marriages were a thread that ran through her career, rather than a seperate thing. Harlow is different - her marriages and her career were fairly seperate. With Harlow, there is also quite a bit of detail that can be given about Paul Bern (is that what you're thinking too?), in which case uses the Monroe format would work very well. It would also allow for the William Powell relationship to be discussed. Don't know how you feel about that, but they were engaged weren't they? Rossrs 05:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that sounds like a good plan. I'll help where I can - actually I'd like to see a lot of the articles for the classic stars improved. I hope one day to make a FA out of the Myrna Loy article, which I think is in need of attention at the moment. I'm sure you've heard of her - she was in a couple of films with Jean :-) I hope to get to that one day (but today is not the day, sadly. Neither is tomorrow...... ) Rossrs 09:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and Madonna

Glad to see Madonna is getting a lot of attention too (and some contraversy - how appropriate). Just a comment about the lead para. I don't have a problem with your edits, honestly, but I thought I would point out that the lead para should be a summary of the article that follows. You said in your edit summary that you thought this was more to the point, however I feel it is now too brief. It's not a problem - I expect the thing to change about 150 times before we're all happy with it, and as it is supposed to summarise the article, perhaps we have to get the article right before we can work seriously on the lead para. I don't know. I think the Kylie Minogue and Mariah Carey articles have good lead paragraphs because they give a bit of the history of the artist. ie rather than just saying where those ladies are, it explains briefly how they got there. I think moulding the Madonna section along similar lines would be a good idea. Rossrs 05:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no concept of Madonna! All this time I was thinking that I knew about Madonna....that I had the concept....the concept....the concept..... and I was wrong...... I was so stupid......it's the albums....just the albums......that's all Madonna is.... a great big jukebox.... with breasts.....and a pointy bra.....pumping out albums.... Like a Virgin...... True Blue.........American Life.........Confessions on a Dance Floor..... Oh my god. Now I just like..... totally like get it......Think about it Patrick....Music..... Like a Prayer....The Immaculate Collection... Say the names out loud..... do you see what I mean? Do you get the concept now Patrick? ....does it make you want to........ revert?........ Good grief, what a load of crap. This is so funny. Thanks for letting me know. I'd noticed it early in the day but didn't have time to respond. Rossrs 13:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna!

I am the number 1 Madonna fan Patrick. Im 13 and eat,sleep,talk and walk Madonna. I have most of her cds and wanted to come to her concert but she wasnt comming to Ohio. I looked up info about madonna and she is quiet the star. I wish i was alive in the 80's to live the whole Madonna Era. I even got my own nickname......MarkDonna! I love it anyone else.

Oh ya what are your favorite Madonna songs?

Mine are -Deeper and Deeeper

-Vouge -Erotic? -True Blue -Borderline -Hung Up, their are so many more songs to add to the list. Madonna will go down in histroy as the best female singer ever!

P.S I enjoyed your myspace:)

Thanks

......... for letting me know about the DVD releases. I'd especially like to get Wife vs Secretary so I will keep my eyes open for them. DVD's usually get released in Australia around the same time as the U.S. but if not, there's always Amazon ;-) Thanks ! Rossrs 21:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

^_^ You know what? You're probably the only person that has been nice enough to actually leave a message like that :) You totally deserver a barnstar for that!!! :):D --Sergiusz Szczebrzeszyński ^{|talk to me|}^{|what i've done|}^|e| 23:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC) [edit]i think i recognize your username from somewhere...but i don't know where, if you can refresh my memory, it would be greatly appreciated :D[reply]

Harlow

Hey there, harlow fan? Good to know you reverted all that crap about allegedly she was involved romantically with this and that guy... what other old time movie stars r u expert on'?>

Talk:Wind It Up (Gwen Stefani song)

Hi! Please answer the questions I left on that talk page. Velten 00:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the talk page. Velten 22:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So do you know when the Canadian CD single release date is? Velten 18:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wind It Up

Yeah, I figured it was probably an accident. As for the vandals, I put in a request for semi-protection.

Today is Tonight

Thanks. I try to fill in the blanks when I find I have novels that don't have articles, and Harlow's book is a rather cool addition to my library. I found it at a rummage sale of all places. 23skidoo 21:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least the book - ghostwritten or not - at least was put together with Harlow's approval, unlike Hedy Lamarr's "autobiography" Ecstasy and Me which she denied having anything to do with. I have a paperback copy of that one, too. I also managed to stumble across a copy of Errol Flynn's novel Showdown a few years ago; that's my copy that's illustrated. 23skidoo 02:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, do you have a source for the information that the book was ghostwritten? This should be noted in the article. 23skidoo 02:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna pic

Hi Patrick, sorry for the slow reply - I've been distracted by real life the last couple of days. I agree the Madonna pic is not the best, but as a free image it will have to do until a better free one comes along. I see that someone has replaced it and I think that was inevitable. Jean Harlow is a different situation. No free images have been found for her yet, so the fair use ones are allowable under Wikipedia's policies. Rossrs 08:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earthgirlsareeasy.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Earthgirlsareeasy.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 17:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Mae-west-photo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mae-west-photo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Harlow_1932.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Harlow_1932.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. Rette tast 10:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Helen_Kane.jpg

I have tagged Image:Helen_Kane.jpg 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. Rette tast 07:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blackout (Britney Spears album)

Why did you delete the History section? And please leave an edit summary after editing, at all times. It makes life easier for everyone — *H ippi ippi 23:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the page "looks bad" is not a basis to remove information. You can clean things up, but just removing the whole lot doesn't improve the article. — *H ippi ippi 23:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this? You simply deleted the information again! Like I said, Wikipedia is NOT about making pages look pretty. You simply deleted facts that were referenced. I agree, it needs cleaning up, but deleting is not the way to go. — *H ippi ippi 23:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry if I sounded rude and blunt or whatever, but you know, communication through the internet = no tone, emotion, can be taken the wrong way etc. The article seems alright now. But it needs some more references. But I still think the contributers should be mentioned in some way. — *H ippi ippi 23:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and This is a better example of an album article - it's a features article. And this is an official guide — *H ippi ippi 23:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, but it needs references. — *H ippi ippi 23:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 17:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Sticky & Sweet Tour

A tag has been placed on Sticky & Sweet Tour, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Nk.sheridan Talk 22:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick, this is a small thing for having its own article. Consider on the future placing these sort of stuff on Madonna_(entertainer)#2007-Present:_New_record_deal_and_film_direction, and using a reliable source for the tour, like an official website from the tour organizer --Enric Naval (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's because this tour hasn't still even started, so there are no notable sources covering it, and I think that you didn't even add any source that verifies the tour. You should make a draft on your userpace, like User talk:PatrickJ83/Sticky & Sweet Tour /just click on the link and start typing) and work on it, and ask other editors on the Madonna page to help you improve it. You can start the article and then ask people on Talk:Madonna_(entertainer) to help you write the draft. You need at least one reliable website that has information on the tour so you can start writing the article up. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna

Take my advise, don't chop the lead of a GA article in half, without discussion, ever again. Take whatever issues you have with leads to the article talk page. I warn you now, don't make arguments about "length", it won't get you far. — Realist² 20:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just a general note:

WP:LEAD states: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article." The LEAD can be four paragraphs, but it does not have to be. However Wikipedia:LEAD#Length states: "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs." Considering the length of the Madonna article, the LEAD actually should be four paragraphs. As for the LEAD's content, while I agree its far from perfect, there is a difference between fancruft and giving equal representation to Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise. The LEAD and article are far from FA, but it's not exactly a fan page either. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for File:AnnieAnthonio.jpg}

Thank you for uploading File:AnnieAnthonio.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. 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 escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for File:AnnieAnthonio.jpg}

Thank you for uploading File:AnnieAnthonio.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. 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 escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:ClaraKimballYoung.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Redheadedwomanadvert.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Redheadedwomanadvert.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).

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) 00:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:AnnieAnthonio.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AnnieAnthonio.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 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]