Jacques Delson

Learn more about this page

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Hi, Jacques. Welcome from me, too. I see from checking the page histories that we have some interests in common (the work of Gilles Archambault, for one) so we'll probably be running across each other again.Jfitzg

And not only are you interested in racehorses, you're interestd in Anthony Trollope, as I am. Spooky. between the two of us we should be able to fill in some considerable gaps on this site.Jfitzg

I'll check the spelling of Matts Scooter's name. In the program he never had an apostrophe, but that means little. What a horse, though. Saw him frequently at Greenwood.Jfitzg

Guess he must have had an apostrophe in the program. What a memory I must have. Thanks for correcting my error.Jfitzg

I'm also trying to use your horse biographies as a model. Very thorough.

You've seen some legends of the trotting game, eh? I'm old, but I wasn't following the trotters in '58 (came to them late). Best race I ever saw was Jate Lobell nosing out Frugal Gourmet in the North America Cup in '87. A lot of game horses in that one.Jfitzg

Thanks for the link to the list of years in literature. My plan now is to keep adding authors, racehorses, and (some) musicians. Between the two of us we should be able to increase the horse/author content pretty significantly.Jfitzg

I used to go to the track occasionally with a fellow who wrote English textbooks, but we didn't talk about Trollope much while we were there. I'm pretty sure most people at Woodbine would find Anthony's last name to be funny. Which reminds me that I haven't read the article about him yet. Have a good weekend.Jfitzg

Here's a sign of age -- when I got to the Trollope article I realized I had in fact read it.Jfitzg

Jacques, thanks for the suggestion about United States Office of the Independent Counsel. As you may be able to tell I'm working my way through legal topics and trying to add more info and also add Canadian content. If you have any more suggestions, let me know. I find working on Wikipedia very relaxing. Of course I have yet to experience heavy re-editing, but I don't think that will really be a problem. I like to volunteer and I offer my work in the spirit of cooperation (how Canadian of me!). Alex756

Thorse is named Stout. I actually checked that one instead of relying on my memory -- you're improving my work habits.Jfitzg

Hello. In regards to your sports template, I think it would look better if the numbered horse races were indented once (by placing an * in front of each #). What do you think? -- Notheruser 16:28 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Jacques: I states (in the four para.,first sentence, I think) that the United States Office of the Independent Counsel has an unlimited budget — that obvious (to me that is) that comes from the authorizing statute, i.e. it is from the general revenue fund from Congress and no one can reject any IC expenditure (thus making it truely independent from congressional financial control). I think this has more to do with the structure of US government expenditures than this individual law. Do you think it could be made more clear? Alex756 05:24 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Jacques, good work on the years in sport. I'm very impressed with the speed that they're filling up, I was going to add England winning the '66 World Cup but it was already there! Is this a WikiProject? I think it would be useful if it was because then it would be somewhere to keep a record of work in progress or sports in particular years which are not completed yet. -- Ams80 10:19 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

(to Martin) :I've been following Alex756 and his good work here. Note yesterday you were asking someone for details on a photo they had placed in an article. Wondered why it was your business, so I read the DMCA and checked the Talk page. You said you deleted some stuff because it was about Wikipedia. You should put it back, it doesn't mention Wikipedia and is extremely important. After you put it back, I'll ask Alex756 to look it over. Thanks. Jacques Delson

The text in question mentions wikipedia 17 times. Martin

The text in question deleted by you does not mention Wikipedia even once. Please check:

(cur) (last) . . 18:58 Apr 15, 2003 . . MyRedDice (reverting - see Talk)
Thanks Jacques Delson

Looks like that was an oversight. Feel free to merge the deleted material with Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act.

I have enough work right now and after almost 9 hours today on sports stuff, I'm exhausted. Would you mind fixing your owner error? Thanks. Jacques Delson

pleasure.

I think the whole situation is under control. I added some stuff to DMCA that mentions OCILLA and I will go through Talk:OCILLA to make sure that anything that is not covered in OCILLA is merged into that article. I know Wikipedia is not supposed to be self referential — Why is that? I really don't understand that? — and I noticed when my designated agent offering was changed to Wikipedia:designated agent that a redirect was put in to OCILLA, so I made a short stub about the designated agent and cross referenced OCILLA & DCMA and Wikipedia:designated agent. By that last link do you think I violated any Wikipedia rules? I just thought it would be good to mention to people who are looking for the designated agent to actually find it in the Wikipedia namespace, or at least a link to it. I think technically that is what the law requires. (Though this is not legal advice — (now that's self-referential!)) — ;-) — Alex756

Dear Jacques: Hi! I just wanted to say that sure Id like to keep on helping with the boxing articles. I just think its time that an encyclopedia really dedicates itself to boxing, and so this is a great chance for us to have an encyclopedia that really goes beyond the usual Muhammad Ali and Sugar Ray Robinson talk and focuses on the other greats as well. If you notice, and I dont mean this as a criticizism, but most encyclopedias would rather much talk about scientists or mathematicians not that many people know about, unlike a Wilfredo Gomez, Wilfredo Benitez or Julio Cesar Chavez, who are national heroes.

Actually if you look at my record, I love writing about EVERYTHING that has made an impact in my life, and things that I like in general, but boxing is my main driving force here..LOL

So, keep up the good job and I hope to read your articles on a Matthew Hilton or a Murray Sutherland soon!!

Thanks for reading the articles Ive been a part of and God bless you!

Sincerely yours, Antonio Lets Get Ready to Rumble!!! Martin

Dear Jacques; Hi, thanks for your kind words. I love helping to inform people about boxers. Boxers, male or female, might not be teachers, scientists or politicians, but what they do for our entertainment, is worth the admiration of all of us, many people fail to understand that.

Thanks and God bless you!

sincerely yours Antonio Jumping without the parachute! Martin

Are you DW? --Camembert

"Please leave and don't come back until you can cooperate and work in the spirit of creating something valuable." and "Your level of ignorance sinks beneath the dignity of people here. " are very clear violations of our Wikipedia:Wikiquette policy. Please do not violate this policy again. --mav

From JHK's page:

I take very strong objection to you constantly changing the List of French monarchs and imposing your personal view without benefit of facts and in contradiction of facts on the page that go against your views. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for airing personal views or a place to set a personal agenda. I accept Edward James, "The Origins of France: Clovis to the Capetians 500-1000." ISBN: 0333270525 to clearly mean that Clovis is part of the history of France. And, I accept Paul Fouracre and Richard A. Gerberding, Late Merovingian France: History and Hagiography, 640-720. Manchester University Press - ISBN: 0719047919 as meaning the Merovingian were part of France. But, I repeat, I do not accept your unfounded views. And, I take strong exception to you inserting your own misleading text into the REFERENCES in a deceitful attempt to legitimize your unsubstantiated ideas. Kindly put an end to your obsessive behavior. Jacques Delson 21:22 25 May 2003 (UTC)

Damn -- this is why I left before. just for the last part, how can a mention of the context in which a document was written be a deceitful attempt to legitimize unsubstantiated ideas?

Please leave and don't come back until you can cooperate and work in the spirit of creating something valuable.Jacques Delson 22:31 25 May 2003 (UTC)

Your level of ignorance sinks beneath the dignity of people here. And, I and no one else is interested in your "intrepretations", ideas., beliefs or any thing you may dream up. If you have facts, post facts, Otherwidse stop playing games and trying to destroy other's hard work. Jacques Delson 22:36 25 May 2003 (UTC)

more of the same

From the history pages here it seems this JHK person keeps coming back trying to impose her view. Cambridge University is not French so accept facts as they are. Please do not insert opinions or generalities about some mythic group who "now see things different". Do as someone before did. If you have documented facts or texts to refer to, please state them. Otherwise, stop trying to impose an unfounded view. 22:57 22 May 2003 (UTC)

This is typical of the type of attacks which drove JHK and Michael Tinkler (both professional mediaevalists) from the Wikipedia despite the fact that their contributions were of a much higher standard (in that they were based on better research) than those of the armchair historians who attacked them. I was very sorry at the time to see the two of them go and I'm even more sorry to see that the attacks continue. -- Derek Ross

Just let it go until you provide documented facts that contradict the FACTS that are listed. I accept the book references someone posted here, you should too. Your continued insertion of unfounded and even derogatory opinions is not acceptable. Please grow up, whoever/whatever you claim to be. It is people like you who drive away sincere contributors. Jacques Delson 04:46 23 May 2003 (UTC)

I posted the following to User:JHK's page and will amend this page one final time:

I take very strong objection to you constantly changing the List of French monarchs and imposing your personal view without benefit of facts and in contradiction of facts on the page that go against your views. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for airing personal views or a place to set a personal agenda. I accept Edward James, "The Origins of France: Clovis to the Capetians 500-1000." ISBN: 0333270525 to clearly mean that Clovis is part of the history of France. And, I accept Paul Fouracre and Richard A. Gerberding, Late Merovingian France: History and Hagiography, 640-720. Manchester University Press - ISBN: 0719047919 as meaning the Merovingian were part of France. But, I repeat, I do not accept your unfounded views. And, I take strong exception to you inserting your own misleading text into the REFERENCES in a deceitful attempt to legitimize your unsubstantiated ideas. Kindly put an end to your obsessive behavior.Jacques Delson

from wikipedia:village pump

I posted this on JHKs page and on the List of French monarchs discussion page. This person has kept up her nonsense for a long time, driving several users away. Whatever her agenda, someone has to put an end to it, because despite polite, then stern warnings about her conduct, this man or woman going by the user name of JHK ignores everything. It is vandalism to delete facts because they disprove what are unfounded theories that smell of racism and I certainly do not to continue to work at this website if this kind of behavior is allowed to continue.

I take very strong objection to you constantly changing the List of French monarchs and imposing your personal view without benefit of facts and in contradiction of facts on the page that go against your views. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for airing personal views or a place to set a personal agenda. I accept Edward James, "The Origins of France: Clovis to the Capetians 500-1000." ISBN: 0333270525 to clearly mean that Clovis is part of the history of France. And, I accept Paul Fouracre and Richard A. Gerberding, Late Merovingian France: History and Hagiography, 640-720. Manchester University Press - ISBN: 0719047919 as meaning the Merovingian were part of France. But, I repeat, I do not accept your unfounded views. And, I take strong exception to you inserting your own misleading text into the REFERENCES in a deceitful attempt to legitimize your unsubstantiated ideas. Kindly put an end to your obsessive behavior. Jacques Delson 21:22 25 May 2003 (UTC) Jacques Delson 22:25 25 May 2003 (UTC)

Well, it's too bad that somehow someone called JHK has Administratibve powers to delete peoples work and others do nothing about her vanadalism. I came here to contribute, but not to spend my time to argue with someone who posts opinions and POV articles and has the audacity to inform Wikipedia in an article that SHE will allow the Carolingians on the list of French monarchs. This makes a joke out of Wikipedia. So, I say goodbye, and thank User:AntonioMartin for his valued help. Jacques Delson 23:16 25 May 2003 (UTC)

I'm wondering upon what authority it is that you start shifting amd moving things on my page. If you have a problem with anything I write in any place, then put your objections at the appropriate location but do not desecrate my pages. Thank you. Jacques Delson 03:30 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Funny you should think that placing things you wrote elsewhere onto your talk page desecrates your talk page. --mav

I felt that they were personal attacks, so I moved them here. If other people disagree with this, they will no doubt revert my moves. You are of course free to delete your comments if you feel they are desecrating the place - I moved them here so that you have the option of keeping them or deleting them, as you see fit.

If you do leave Wikipedia, may I wish you the very best of luck wherever you go. If you decide to say, I hope you will be successful in your goal of spending your time contributing, not arguing. Martin

(to Martin) You sure were right, sir, this Mr. Delson indeed did want to work, and you saw his user contributions too as I just did. The huge amount and quality of what Mr. Delson did in creating 50 full years in sports with massive detail and linked articles was badly need. It is indeed sad that he is one more driven away by the abuse of Ms. User:JHK. We need contributors like him who minded their business and worked hard. Thank you, sir, and have a joyous time at Wikipedia. Triton

Thank you. May you also have a joyous time at Wikipedia, and may your joy never impact the joy of others. Martin 23:10 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Moved comments:

Perhaps you missed my question above. Why does JHK get to deface Jacques Delson's page with stereotypical comments about Canadians and not be accused of a breach of Wikiquette?

Cat's got your tongue, eh? No matter -- your silence speaks volumes. It seems Wikiquette only applies to certain people. If you're one of the cool kids you can be as obnoxious as you want. And that's why I'm posting anonymously. Don't need JHK slagging me off at the length she likes to ramble on and having no recourse.

I fixed the edit in question. Martin

It's interesting that on Triton's talk page JHK accuses Triton of posting the above comment and of concealing his command of English in other posts. This is an example of one thing that's wrong with this place -- people making baseless accusations. I ( Trontonian ) posted the comment, not Triton. I'm sure, though, that the paranoia rampant on Wikipedia will lead some to refuse to believe me.

Anyway, I didn't notice JHK either apologizing or denying the accuracy of the post, which would have been a productive way of dealing with it. Since JHK will no doubt be coming back under another name he/she can feel free to take this up with me. And if his/her sysop buddies want to ban me, feel free. Trontonian

Mr. Delson, sir, I note that these comments moved here have no creditation. As such I copied the following from Mr. User:Maverick's page so we might know. My computer skills are not the best, I hope I did it right. Triton

(cur) (last) . . 12:39 29 May 2003 . . 216.154.9.167

(cur) (last) . . 12:37 29 May 2003 . . 216.154.9.167

Mr. User:Jacques Delson. I hope you will change your mind and come back. I am sorry you were driven away. It appears there was little done on "years in sports" until you made the effort. I think your work was outstanding and obviously a great amount of time and dedication was made. I'm not a great sports fan but I did like the way you tried to make it international like listing the major horse races. For your enjoyment if you decide to come back, perhaps I will do a small article on the Godolphin Stables and their successes, something I do know a liitle bit about. Thank you sir. May the Prophet bless you. Triton

Jacques -- What I said is pretty representative of what historians of Medieval and Late Antique History say about France, AFAIK. WHat I know is more than the average wikipedian -- I am by profession a Historian -- my specialtiy is Carolingian. I'm fairly up on the scholarship and, if you not, I added two references to the list at the end of the French Monarchs page. ALso, as I have tried to explain many times before, most general books are talking about France in the sense of a geographical area, often following conventions that are being rethought. If one looks at two very simple criteria, I don't understand the problem. Simply put, ask yourself if the M's were French -- answer, no, they were Franks. DIfferent thing entirely, despite the fact that the name France is derived from Francia -- but then so is Franken in Germany -- surely you aren't saying that people living in Franken are French? WHat about Louis the German? (paraphrased)

Second question -- were the M's kings of France? Answer -- no -- the Merovingians ruled several kingdoms at different times. The best-known are Austrasia and Neustria. No France. The country that is now France just didn't exist.

Now, you can ask different questions and get different answers -- Do many French people think of the Merovingians (and Carolingians) as French? Probably they do. There's even good reason, since some of them are buried in Paris (although I'm pretty sure some of the remains were translated there in the same way that saints' relics were translated -- often stolen -- in the MA -- again, Patrick Geary is a good source for this). But you know what? Germans also think of many of the same Frankish kings (especially the Carolingians) as German. I would say the same to them -- nope. This field is growing by leaps and bounds. Much of what appears on the wikipedia reflects less the comfortable conventions and more the newer trends, because that's a luxury that the medium offers. I have tried to make that clear. oh -- and a couple of other things --

If the Merovingians were the first kings of France, why do the Carolingians make no attempt to emphasize contiuity? Answer (main reason) -- because there was no need. They had the support of the Frankish nobles AND the pope. They were much more concerned with the tie to Rome

Why do the Capetians need to tie things back to the Merovingians? Answer (somewhat simplified) -- Hugh Capet's claim to the throne, although supported by the western Frankish nobles, wasn't that strong -- over the succeeding generations, and for a number of political reasons, inheritance through Salic law and continuity back to those times was emphasized by the Capetian kings -- this became more important at times when rival claimants to the throne (like the kings of England) appeared.

Are there any other claims about the Merovingians and their position out there that provide documentation? ANswer -- yes, there are several books out there that demonstrate that the Merovingians are direct descendants of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene, and that they are also somehow connected to the Knights Templar. IS this provable? um ... no, but many people believe it. It doesnt mean it should be in the article on Merovingians, though. JHK (written by an unlogged in user at IP 12.208.151.49)

Image:TerryPuhlbaseball.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:TerryPuhlbaseball.JPG. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 03:43, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Image tag

Thanks for uploading Image:On the Champs Elysees-Caillebotte.JPG. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, Aqua 06:10, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Please check your WP:NA entry

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! bd2412 T 03:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Image Tagging for Image:MistinguettPoster.jpg

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading Image:MistinguettPoster.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.

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. 12:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fair use rationale for Image:PeggyGuggenheimcover.jpg

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading Image:PeggyGuggenheimcover.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.

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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Unspecified source for Image:PeggyGuggenheimcover.jpg

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading Image:PeggyGuggenheimcover.jpg. 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, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fair use rationale for Image:PeggyGuggenheimcover.jpg

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading Image:PeggyGuggenheimcover.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.

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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 05:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Unspecified source for Image:PeggyGuggenheimcover.jpg

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading Image:PeggyGuggenheimcover.jpg. 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, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 05:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned non-free image (Image:PeggyGuggenheimcover.jpg)

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading Image:PeggyGuggenheimcover.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 01:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Non-free use disputed for Image:OscarPetersoncomposer.jpg

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:OscarPetersoncomposer.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 05:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Non-free use disputed for Image:Parlez-Moidamour.jpg

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Parlez-Moidamour.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 07:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fair use rationale for Image:FifiDorsayactress.JPG

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:FifiDorsayactress.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. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Mary Augusta Ward

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Any chance you know where this image is from: Image:MaryAugustaWard.jpg. I would like to use it on s:Author:Mary_Augusta_Ward, but before moving it to commons I need to be sure that it was either published in the US, or is PD in country of origin as well. John Vandenberg (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

File:DanPatch.jpg listed for deletion

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:DanPatch.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

File:MaryAugustaWard.jpg listed for deletion

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:MaryAugustaWard.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nomination of Grand Slam Prize in harness racing for deletion

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Grand Slam Prize in harness racing is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Slam Prize in harness racing until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic