User talk:Scalga

	Archives
	Archive 20080311
	Archive 20090121
	Archive 20090129

1 Image copyright problem with File:Superiorjuniorcadet.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Superiorjuniorcadet.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. 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 made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. 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 STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Rotcmfhribbon.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Rotcmfhribbon.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 STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potential conflict of interest

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article State Defense Forces, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Can you find a source for the statement about NJ not having a SDF anymore? Also, please don't remove the "fact" tags in any article unless you can replace them with a cite to a reliable source. Thanks. Newguy34 (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of State Guard Association of the United States

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is State Guard Association of the United States. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State Guard Association of the United States. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SGAUS

I don't know what the flying fuck you think you are doing, but knock it off or we will battle. Your edits are pure vandalism meant to disrupt the article, and you know it. QueenofBattle (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, go add back the Colorado, DC, etc. "rumps" but quite jacking up the rest of the article just to be disruptive. QueenofBattle (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, I have rollback rights so I can revert disruptive vandalism, such as yours, with one click of the mouse. If you want to contribute constructively, I won't revert. But, removing sources and commas is a deliberate attempt to be disruptive, qualifies as vandalism. I can go all night... QueenofBattle (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your issue? Did you not get a medal or something. How can you list .gov websites for active state defense forces in the table? government entities are not chapters. You said you were a SGAUS member since 2003 - how do you think your edits are helping to advance the concepts of State Defense Forces. There are new officers every year. The SGAUS organization has no control over individuals or groups outside the organization. I'm sorry I ever took the time to start this article to complement the SDF article.22015va (talk) 04:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Gallagher: This is not censorship. You continue to use the words "private militia" and link to obsolete web pages that are not part of the organizations website. Additionally, your actions are malicious and pure vandalism. You undo all edits (even typo corrections) vice focusing the discussion of the content of the article. For example, the SGAUS state associations & state chapter relationships are clearly explained in ref [1] but you keep deleting the reference. Current site or archived, the ref is the same but you keep deleting it. You seem to have a clear bias against this organizations as an admitted member. Delete, undo, and cry censorship all you want - SGAUS does not support "private/rump militias" and you know it. SGAUS recognizes state associations - why do you keep deleting their mention and my current references? You would maintain/gain credibilty if your were to review my edits (one at a time) and read each cite before deleting everthing with the "undo" command. That is counter productive.22015va (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you were not aware, you have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#SGAUS. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that both sides in this quarrel have strongly held views on what the article should be like, and have have shown a tendency to stick to their own sides uncompromisingly, reverting one another's edits. I actually have some sympathy with both sides, but I don't know enough about SGAUS to judge the merits of either view. It seems to me that the best way forward is for both of you to try to discuss your differences with a view to producing a version of the article which reflects both points of. Whether this is possible depends on you and 22015va. 22015va has made a request for help on my user page, and I have made a response there, suggesting such an attempt at discussion. I would suggest that, even if you are certain you are right, in the long run you have a better chance of making progress if you aim for a version which, as I say, reflects both points of view. Naturally this is just my suggestion, which you may take or leave, but it is made in the hope that it may be helpful. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are being discussed at the 3RR noticeboard

Please see WP:AN3#User:Todd Gallagher reported by User:22015va (Result: ). You are welcome to add your own comment there. I regret not to see any posts by you on the article's talk page. If you are still unhappy with the article, you could ask for comments at WT:MILHIST, you could post at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, or you could follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. The presence of some COI editing worries me, but until recently the tone of the debate was very sharp and seemed a bit over the top, on both sides.

If the organization did misbehave in the past, would that not have come to the attention of some reliable sources? To hang a lengthy commentary on something that only exists in web archives seems a bit fragile. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/17876609/detail.html : Here is a link to a news agency questioning the "North Carolina State Guard" and how it is a rump that is trying to sound official. This is a group sponsored by the SGAUS. However, they keep trying to edit this valid criticism out. So there are "reliable sources" out there. As for teh archives, so are archives from the organization's own site preserved on archives.org. How would they not be reliable? The group lying about itself?Todd Gallagher (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the result of the 3RR case at WP:AN3#User:Todd Gallagher reported by User:22015va (Result: Both warned), Both parties are warned that they must follow Wikipedia policy. 22015va is asked to read the WP:Conflict of interest guideline. If the war starts up again, both parties risk sanctions with no further warning. Use the Talk page, and follow WP:Dispute resolution if no agreement can be found. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why the story at www.wsoctv.com could not be included. The web archives, not so much. We already scold people when they rely too much on an organization's own web site for significant facts. How much worse is it to rely on an *obsolete version* of the organization's site. If nobody outside the group has ever commented on this stuff, why should we? It seems like you want these guys to be considered supporters of sinister militia-type organizations, while the worst you could say is that some of them are wannabe National Guardsmen. EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not. I am an officer in the SDF. Congress created SDF's to replace the National Guard when they are activated, so there is nothing wrong there. The problem, however, lies with the SGAUS. It is a private organization that has nothing to do with the SDF itself. Similar to the VFW or ROA or American Legion in contrast to the Armed Forces. A distinction, however, is that the SGAUS recognizes non-SDF's. They recognize actual private militias that charter themselves as "SGAUS associations" and have nothing at all to do with the military units created by Congress and the respective states under 32 USC 109 and state law. The SGAUS has has as recently as 2009 a self-appointed "colonel" on its Board of Directors, as well as recognized private militias in North Carolina (as this news article was about), Colorado, D.C., and Florida. None of these jurisdictions has an SDF. It is important to note this in the article and that is what the SGAUS is trying to censor. 2015va is the webmaster for sgaus.org and deleted the evidence after I posted it. That is why I then posted links to archives.org. He then asked them to remove it, and per policy, they did, since he is the webmaster. 2015va has a conflict of interest, as posted. Whenever somting is posted he does not like, he deletes it or changes the website.Todd Gallagher (talk) 06:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to improve the articles

I notice this information about SGAUS on their own site is still in the Google cache as of today. (This info is cited by them to "State Legislatures, May 1996, with permission from the National Conference of State Legislatures, Denver, Colorado"). To get the COI tag removed from the SGAUS article, I recommend that we get some outside viewpoints on the organization or at least hear about things they are involved in that are possibly controversial. I don't have much time to look into this further, but I invite you to make suggestions as to what should happen, for example:

New sources might be found that would give balance to the SGAUS article
The SGAUS article could be nominated for deletion, if there are truly no WP:RS which comment on the organization itself. (You found a TV report about the North Carolina State Guard, which is a non-SDF, but the report is not about SGAUS as such).
Our article about State Defense Forces might be enhanced to include mention of some of the controversies.
The helpful table of state associations in SGAUS might be merged into the State Defense Forces article and then the SGAUS association might get a brief mention in that article.

Please let me know if you have any reaction to these ideas. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"#The SGAUS article could be nominated for deletion, if there are truly no WP:RS which comment on the organization itself. (You found a TV report about the North Carolina State Guard, which is a non-SDF, but the report is not about SGAUS as such)." The North Carolina State Guard Association is just that--an association of the SGAUS. It is not an SDF, but it is an SGAUS association. I do not see why it should be included in the SDF article any more than the National Guard article, as the report itself compared them to the National Guard. What the SGAUS seems to be hiding is that it is full of "hillbilly Bob private militias" alongside genuine SDF's. It states that it does not recognize private militias UNLESS they are trying to become official. That is from their own paperwork. Well guess what? I have been in the SDF since 2003 and they have had four "hillbilly Bob private militias" and not a single one has been recognized. No state is ever going to recognize a private militia. If an SDF is formed in a state without one (like Michigan has since the 1990's), they start from scratch. The SGAUS webmaster seems to like editing this out. As for your ideas, I would go for deletion if they continue editing out all resources. There are no independent resources about the group itself, only its associations. The site is controlled by them and they have blocked archives.org from releasing anything they have posted in the past.Todd Gallagher (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Gallagher I would like to make the effort to reach a consensus with you on the SGAUS article. I have added a column to the states table to list the independent state associations with a link to that state government's list of state corporations. For example, above you list the North Carolina State Guard Association as a SGAUS association - it is not. The North Carolina State Guard Association is incorporated in the state of North Carolina [2] and the SGAUS organization is incorporated in the State of Maryland. A previous link on an archive page of the SGUAS website to an obsolete website of the North Carolina State Guard Association does not constitute financial support or corporate merger. I will make ever effort to ensure that any changes I make to the article are small and incremental w/third-party sources. I look forward to developing a consensus with you (and all wiki members) on a fair and balanced article on the SGAUS organization. Respectfully,22015va (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

State Defense Forces

Sir, do you have any current sources that show Massachusetts, Mississippi, or Louisiana still have active state defense forces. I believe the 2005 DoD report is out date. I cannot find any current references for these forces on any government run website. As for the New Jersey Naval unit, there are listed on the NJ government website. I believe the count of 22 is no longer accurate.22015va (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, but Wikipedia is not an independent research site. We go by secondary and tertiary sources only. I see DOD sites as recent as 2008 referencing one of those SDF's, and the Army Times itself cites the number as recently as 2009. This is why your personal involvement is already is question. You are a primary source when it comes to the SGAUS since you control the site. Todd Gallagher (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I am not looking to undermine SDFs or the article (I reverted my count edit). I was seeking to show an accurate count of what states have active SDFs today. On 01/21/09 you posted on the SDF article's discussion page that a state did not have an SDF, and the lack of any mention of it on the state's Adjutant General's website proved there was no SDF (a fair argument). But Wouldn't same argument apply to other states as well? I do not question the authenticity of the 2005 DoD report, I question the relevancy of the report now that it is four years old. Are there current third-party sources that reflect Massachusetts, Mississippi, and Louisiana still have active SDFs? If so, please share. The most I could find on the three states were mentions in archived discussions on military interests websites. Again, I'm not looking to undermine SDFs or the article.22015va (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

adjutants v. adjutant

Sir, thank you. Correction made.22015va (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:HughALocke.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:HughALocke.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Savannah Law School

Todd Gallagher, the MOS is pretty big, so I know you'll forgive me if I don't re-read the whole thing. The provision I am aware of is WP:DECADE which does not appear to have any leeway. Please tell me if I have misread this. Also, I have found the MOS to frequently have conflicting provisions, so if you are following such a provision, please point it out to me. Ocalafla (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:SECTIONS#Apostrophes "For groups of years, the apostrophe at the end is unnecessary, since there is no possibility of misreading. For this reason, some style guides prefer 1960s to 1960's[49] (although the latter is noted by at least one source as acceptable in American usage),[50] and 90s or '90s to 90's or '90's."

I don't see that text in the actual MOS (what you linked to). In fact further down that page, the MOS states "Decades are written in the format the 1980s, with no apostrophe". I only found the language you quoted in the wikipedia article Apostrophe which is distinct from the MOS. Sorry if I'm still missing something, but can you show me where the MOS supports your usage? Thanks! Ocalafla (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It specifically states in the MoS: "For a thorough treatment of all uses of the apostrophe (possessive, elision, formation of certain plurals, specific foreign-language issues) see the article Apostrophe," to which it then links and states the previous posted rule. I agree the other section of the MoS states that apostrophes should not be used for plurality; so it contradicts itself. Perhaps it should state in the MoS that it is linking to the article for non-Wikipedia uses of the apostrophe, but it does not. I am not going to argue over a minute grammatical rule, so go ahead and remove the apostrophes designating plurality. The rule in the MoS for the formation of certain plurals should be removed. Todd Gallagher (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A valiant argument that I would make in court if it were all I had! But, one I'd expect a judge to reject pretty quickly. :) Ocalafla (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Defense Cadet Corps, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Defense (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ROTC

1) User talk:Pama73 comment and edits convinced me that non-possessive was correct. I am not sure now. 2) The article material was apparently moved back to the possessively named article. Seems to be missing the edit history. 3) I don't think that the Talk:Reserve Officer Training Corps got moved either. 4) There was a way to reverse this, which I won't go into at this point. If you can convince Pama73 that you are correct, we may need administrator intervention here to re-merge histories. Probably would help with moving discussion page as well, though we could manage that part ourselves. Let me know. Thanks. And sorry for my error, if that is what it turns out to be. Student7 (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reserve Officers' Training Corps

Just a word to let you know, for future reference, that if you want to move an article but the "move" button won't work (because the name you want to use is already in use), "cut and paste" moves of the article's content to your preferred title are frowned upon because it detaches the contribution history from the text. Further information is at {{Uw-c&pmove}}. I've fixed the issue now. Best wishes, Bencherlite ^Talk 10:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Superior Cadet Decoration Military School Division.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Superior Cadet Decoration Military School Division.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention needed at WP:CHU

Hello. A bureaucrat or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 14:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:GSDF Outstanding Unit Citation Ribbon.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:GSDF Outstanding Unit Citation Ribbon.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:GSDF SSIs.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GSDF SSIs.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Gasdflogo2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gasdflogo2.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. --B-bot (talk) 02:09, 15 September 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) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Scalga. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Scalga. 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)[reply]

File source problem with File:Superiorcadetsenior.gif

Thank you for uploading File:Superiorcadetsenior.gif. 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, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Ranger challenge.JPG

The file File:Ranger challenge.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]