Hookerj

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Hookerj! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! --  Netsnipe  ►  16:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Image tagging for Image:Pinkkk.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pinkkk.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

==Do Not Remove Warnings== Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. If you continue to remove or vandalize warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. zappa.jake (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. While the Wikipedia community appreciates your obvious efforts to increase the amount of information on the site, we'd like to point out our policy against original research and for citing sources for the information you provide. This increases the reputation of Wikipedia as a whole and aids in checking the factuality of that article. Extraordinary Machine 16:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Will ^{(Glaciers melting in the dead of night)} 20:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop edit warning. If it continues I will report you. The edits he is making is in good faith. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 20:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on September 19 2006 to Stupid Girls

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 21:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Who Knew

1. Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Who Knew. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.
2. I have noted that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks!
3. Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 21:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

unblockme

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hookerj (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

please unblock me!! i don't do vandalism, i need edit

Decline reason:

You weren't blocked for vandalism. Read your block message. You were blocked for violating the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule on Who Knew. You clearly need to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's rules as linked to in your welcome message. --  Netsnipe  ►  16:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Charts

All charts must be supported with reliable sources. You have continued to readd the charts without providing requested sources. Please note that I and others will continue to delete unsourced information from Wikipedia. Captainktainer * Talk 14:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm Not Dead

It's nice that you want to contribute to Wikipedia, but what you're doing is not helping. Please only post things to Wikipedia that are verifiable. This means that, if someone doubts information from Wikipedia, they can very easily go to a reliable website (not a discussion board) and check that it is the correct information. The lists of numbers in the I'm Not Dead article do not in the slightest bit fit this. It's a waste of your time to post them. --Dtcdthingy 14:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Who Knew (again)

1. Please do not revert other people's edits wholesale. When you do this, not only do you undo the changes you intended to undo, but you undo unrelated and genuinely useful changes made in the meantime. Doing this repeatedly is considered disruption and will lead to a block. The statement "already shaping up to be a radio smash" is unnecessary, because the single's already come and gone, and "reveals a different shade of P!nk to the sassy and controversial "Stupid Girls"" is a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. I've added a reference to an interview in which P!nk says "Who Knew" is about the death of friendship, so it's inaccurate to say it's about losing loved ones to drug abuse.
2. See Talk:Who Knew about the now-removed "Music Video" section header, which was incorrectly capitalised anyway ("Video" isn't a proper noun in this context).
3. Rather than removing the {{unreferenced}} tag from the article again, it would be more useful if you were to cite your sources for the information you have been inserting so that other editors can verify your work, as other editors have asked you to. Bear in mind that any editor may remove unsourced content from any article at any time; the obligation for providing references lies with those wishing to retain such content rather than those wishing to remove it.
4. Wikipedia guidelines recommend uncoloured "wikitable" format for charts, not coloured tablabonita. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts for more information on how to format tables.
5. The placement of Image:Whoknewcap.jpg opposite the infobox makes the article look messy, in my opinion. That's why I placed it below the infobox instead. Extraordinary Machine 23:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you deliberately introduce incorrect information into a page, as you did to Who Knew, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Extraordinary Machine 09:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring on P!nk-related articles

On articles related to P!nk you have a tendency to revert other editors repeatedly, without explaining your edits on the talk pages or responding to those who have explained theirs. Please note that this encyclopedia is built on collaborative editing and teamwork rather than revert warring, and persistently behaving the way have you been doing will lead to a request for comment, which could lead to punitive action against you. If you have specific issues about somebody's edits, please take it up with them on their talk page or the articles; do not simply revert. Please also provide an edit summary before submitting edits. Labelling other people's edits "vandalism" [2] [3] when they clearly aren't (see Wikipedia:Vandalism) is unacceptable; see Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

As I said above, performing wholesale reverts (reverts that not only undo the edits you were intending to revert, but other, unrelated changes) repeatedly is considered disruptive. This is your last warning about this: if you do this again, you will be blocked from editing for a period.

I have restored my edits to P!nk discography; please read and reply to my reasons for them at Talk:P!nk discography. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 19:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

1. As I already said on Talk:Who Knew, number-one positions shouldn't be bolded; firstly, it violates the neutral point of view policy by highlighting them over the others, and secondly, it's distracting to the eye for those wanting to read the other positions. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Legibility recommends using boldfacing sparingly.
2. I'm afraid I didn't understand the message you left on my talk page; I'm guessing English isn't your first language. I do hope you understand, though, that if you falsely accuse other editors of vandalism again (as you did here, after being told not to), it is highly likely that you will be blocked from editing for a period. Extraordinary Machine 21:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

1. As I told you on Talk:Who Knew (to which I've directed you more than once), Wikipedia guidelines recommend uncoloured "wikitable" format for charts, not coloured tablabonita. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts for more information on how to format tables. If you want to suggest changes to these guidelines, feel free to do so at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts; I should warn you, though, that many, many articles abide by the format recommended there, and it's unlikely that editors will agree to changing every one of them to tablabonita just because one user thinks it's "more attractive".
2. You were asked above to refrain from using boldfacing gratituously. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style and the relevant subpages. Extraordinary Machine 00:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Read Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts for information on how to format chart tables.
2. Don't boldface number-one positions.
3. Stop reverting other people's edits without explanation or discussion. Extraordinary Machine 16:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

About Pink discography: firstly, the resolution problem is most likely on your end. Before you think about "fixing" articles to match the resolution of your computer, consider what effect this will have on the majority of other computers. Secondly, please remember that users are expected to abide by what is written on the policy and guideline pages, such as the Manual of Style. They're there to establish consistency between articles, so if you want to propose changes, please discuss on the relevant talk pages rather than revert other editors again and again. I've explained why I'm editing the way I am, and I'm trying to help you here; please don't just ignore me. Extraordinary Machine 17:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Pink discography. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Extraordinary Machine 19:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

U + Ur Hand and I'm Not Dead

1. Regarding U + Ur Hand: There's no official certifying authority for worldwide record shipments, so the single cannot have a "World" certification of platinum. Please cite reliable sources for information like this.
2. I've restored the sentence you removed about how the single fared compared to the previous two. Why did you remove it? The information was there before anyway, and I think it's useful for readers to know how a single performed in relation to the others from the album, particularly in the case of "U + Ur Hand", which caused a significant increase in sales of the album in the U.S.
3. Billboard.com doesn't list the Hot Digital Songs position you reinserted at all, and because it is a component chart of the main Hot 100, it shouldn't be included anyway. For more information, see Wikipedia:Record charts.
4. Regarding I'm Not Dead: words such as "platinum" and "gold" aren't proper nouns in the context of record certifications, so they shouldn't be capitalised. Extraordinary Machine 21:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

1. I know I'm "not a specialized critic", but surely you must understand the importance of comparing the chart performance of a single to previous ones from the album, particularly when it has done better than at least one of the previous ones. Why don't you think it is relevant? Also, what do you mean by "place information in what you are saying"?
2. So the position appears on that page if you are registered to, and logged-in on, Billboard.com? Regardless, as I said above, component charts of the Hot 100 such as the Hot Digital Songs should not be included except in special circumstances (e.g. a song entered a component chart but not the main Hot 100). Please read Wikipedia:Record charts; if you have a comment, leave it at Wikipedia talk:Record charts. Extraordinary Machine 21:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, in accordance with Wikipedia:Record charts, please stop inserting non-notable Billboard charts and component charts into articles. If you disagree with the notion that they shouldn't be mentioned, please explain why at Wikipedia talk:Record charts, but do not simply ignore other editors. Extraordinary Machine 19:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You didn't explain why you reverted my edits wholesale without an edit summary (you already know this isn't allowed), so I've restored them. You've been blocked in the past for this type of behaviour, so perhaps you should try and work productively with other editors instead of edit warring aggressively and in violating of the policies and guidelines. Extraordinary Machine 17:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Who Knew: Firstly, the chart position you reinserted is not listed on the billboard.com page, and secondly, if you disagree with one part of an edit, you don't undo all of it. You've been told this over and over. Extraordinary Machine 17:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Who Knew. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Extraordinary Machine 17:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not about editing articles "my way", but "the Wikipedia way", i.e. in compliance with the policies and guidelines. This includes Wikipedia:Record charts; if you have a problem with what's written there, take it up on the talk page, but don't just revert other editors over and over without discussion. You've been blocked for reverting excessively before.

Why don't I clean up the Back to Basics (Christina Aguilera album) article? Because I don't own the album nor intend on buying it, that's why. Extraordinary Machine 21:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That there are numerous problems in one article does not mean it is okay for those problems to be present in another article. I refuse to clean up the Back to Basics page because, firstly, I don't care about the album, and secondly, I'm only human - I'm not here to fix everything.

Copyrighted images should only be used where absolutely necessary, and it's just not necessary to have single covers on an album article. See Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. I'd explain my other edits and refer you to the relevant policy and guideline pages, but what's the point when you're just going to edit war and ignore myself and other editors (as you've been doing for months) rather than reply to my messages and discuss the issues?

Not only did your latest revert on I'm Not Dead mess up even the most basic of formatting and spelling corrections, but it inserted numerous inaccuracies and out of date information that had already been removed from the article by myself and others. Doing this repeatedly is disruptive and considered vandalism, and you will be blocked if you do it again. I suggest you seriously consider your attitudes to Wikipedia and to other editors. Extraordinary Machine 23:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Vlcsnap-1491760.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Vlcsnap-1491760.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).

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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

U + Ur Hand, Who Knew

Regarding U + Ur Hand and Who Knew: "Who Knew" has been re-released in the U.S., which makes the order of the Pink singles chronology there different from the order elsewhere in the world, which means two separate singles chronologies are needed in the articles. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 18:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Blanking to Pink (singer)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.Pedro |  Chat  14:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Who Knew

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Who Knew, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Extraordinary Machine 03:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, this applies to every article you edit, including Pink discography. On a related note, there are two separate U.S. releases of "Who Knew", hence two separate entries — combining the two would mislead readers into thinking that "Who Knew" charted on the Hot 100 on its original release. Also, please don't remove official titles of albums — the official title of the Moulin Rouge! soundtrack album isn't Moulin Rouge! OST. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 03:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Thank you. Extraordinary Machine 19:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Pink discography. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Extraordinary Machine 17:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hookerj, adding unsourced content via an IP address instead of your username — you edit from Brazil, which is where the IP 200.243.251.133 (talk · contribs) originates — is still adding unsourced content. Keep in mind that changing cited content without replacing the existing citations with reliable sources is considered disruption, and is likely to lead to your being blocked from editing again. Verifiability is a key Wikipedia policy, and if you can't find reliable sources to support the information you're adding, you shouldn't be adding it. Extraordinary Machine 13:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Without replying to my comments or accompanying your edits with reliable sources, you've been adding and changing unsourced content. Why is this? Does the information you have been adding and changing even have a reliable source? Again, if you can't find a reliable source to support an edit, you shouldn't be making it. If reliable sources aren't provided for the information you've added to Wikipedia already, it will be removed sooner or later — if you want it to be kept, the burden of evidence is on you. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 18:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hookerj, violating policy and ignoring other editors is completely unacceptable. You are continuing to add and change information in articles without providing sources of any kind. Please stop this. Extraordinary Machine 15:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Livefromwembleyarena.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Livefromwembleyarena.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 05:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Liveineuropepink.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Liveineuropepink.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 05:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:I'm Not Dead Australian Tour Edition.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:I'm Not Dead Australian Tour Edition.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 07:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Eeeeeee.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Eeeeeee.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 09:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading Image:Coverofuandurhand.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) 22:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pinkyouandyourhandcoversingle.jpg

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Pink discography

Regarding Pink discography: .tk websites are not generally considered reliable sources because anyone can set one up. Also, you're not supposed to add to articles external links that are on the spam blacklist, much less use them as sources—please don't do that again. If you think the link shouldn't be blacklisted, leave a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Can't Take Me Home -UK-.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Can't Take Me Home -UK-.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) 04:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Lastoknowcaps.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Lastoknowcaps.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia 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 under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator 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. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Whoknewcap.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Whoknewcap.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator 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. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:MrPresident.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:MrPresident.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 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 '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2013 (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) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)