User talk:Fritz Saalfeld/Archive 4

About my 'schinty-six' picture, I drew it myself using Microsoft Paint. The number may have been used in Numberwang, but the picture is my own. Gizmo3200

Non-free photos of bands

Hello again. I've put some thoughts together at User:Quadell/non-free photos of bands about whether (and when) non-free photos of bands are replaceable. If you have an opinion and want to weigh in, I'd value your input. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Jean Genie images

G'day Fritz. Per your message re. Image:JeanGenie6.jpg, yes pls delete it, been superceded with a new image/file (had tried to just update this file with a new image but for some reason it refused to show up in the relevant article so ended up creating a new file - some glitch). Cheers, Ian Rose 10:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:JoseCarrerasCDMalinconia.jpg)

This image is not orphaned. It is used in the article on José Carreras. I have added this information and a link to the artcle to the image file page for this photo. Please do not delete. Best, Voceditenore 08:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:JoseCarrerasCD1.jpg)

This is a previous version used in the article José Carreras and can be deleted. Best, Voceditenore 08:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Carly Hennessy

Hey dude, I found this awesome article on Carly Hennessy and thought we could use it to beef up her page a little. What do you think? M.C. Brown Shoes 10:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Am I missing something on policy?

On the 26th you tagged Image:Issus01.JPG as 'orphaned Fair use', but I'm trying to figure out why you didn't go directly to {{Copyvio}}. Even if by some means it was valid fair use (? How???), it can certainly be duplicated since the intelligence contained is 'just text information'... like our article on same.
   So as I understand these things, unless it was used in an article about ENCARTA, it is strictly copyvio, even used in an article about Issus or the various historic battles around there. (I found it mis-linked in Third battle of Issus under see also.)
   I've asked Sherool to speedy delete it. Best regards // FrankB 16:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

you

I didn't check the actual content of the image, just noticed that it was an unused fair use image and tagged it that way. Plus, this is usually less time-consuming than copyvio, since you only have to tag the image and inform the uploader, and usually has the same effect in the end. Also, I'm not really sure the image qualifies as a copyright violation... --Fritz S. (Talk) 17:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Xpost

• Don't see how it can't be anything but a copyvio--ECARTA is copyrighted by copyright crazy Microsoft. If there is a single company who might complain about infringement, imho, it would likely be them with their record on the issue.
     Since when was doing the job right a casualty to a job being time consuming? We all get such munificent salaries for the work, after all! (<BSEG>) Regards // FrankB 18:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As you said, use of the image in the Encarta article might be valid under fair use, and since it's properly sourced I don't think it's necessary a copyvio per se. Either way, I wouldn't really say tagging it as orphaned fair use was doing the job wrong, after all, it definitely is an unused fair use image, and why should I start a discussion about it being a copyvio when it can/should be deleted as orphaned fair use anyway? We don't take articles through AfDs when they qualify for speedy deletion, either, do we? --Fritz S. (Talk) 18:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Xpost, finis?

So sorry if you took that as critical, as I'm the first to admit the archane procedures involving image tagging and discussion, et. al. are fuzzy at best between my ears. I need to bite my fingers or tounge or something once in a while!
   While I know there has been a recent change in fair-use policy, and have seen one clear case of 'clear legal fair use' summarily speedy deleted since it was something which could be replaced, and that action overtly supported by Jimbo himself, (I know, since we debated same by email too), this seems to be a case that is far less justifiable than that case which I argued should be kept. Hence the speedy recommendation to Sherool, who is my image resource specialist when I smell something, or don't know myself.
   I've also been very missing from wp in the past several months, so I'm very out of touch as well.
   However, to me logically, if that could happen to a legal and justifiable incidence of fair use, it should apply as a square power to a non-legal copy. (IMHO, as I understand fair use in this case, unless the image is illustrating an article on ENCARTA itself, it would not be an occasion of fair use, at all.)
   Since this one was added by a three edit wonder, and specifically mislinked by the same inexperienced somewhat editor specifically on the town of Issus and Battles thereabouts, I feel fairly secure in asserting it wasn't for an article on ENCARTA! Think that beats this discussion to death. Sorry if you took that badly, I'll bite myself somewhere! <G> Best regards // FrankB 19:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess

Dear Fritz—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 14:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Power Rangers userbox images

when you said the images, do you mean for the helmets, coins, or both. If it is coins I will have you know that the image that I got for the coins I got on Wikipedia from Power Coin. If it is from the helmets well then i will just upload the image on the articles(even though at least one of them are on this site, (I just cropped them to look better on the user box, IE: Image:Originalblue.jpg)

Could you please put your reply on my talk page, so I can store it for later?

PS: What took you so long, I thought an admin would talk to me about this right when I put them up. Not that I thought anything was wrong with them, just well no offense I can see why you all(all being admins) are like this, but you all are a bit picky about everything.Phoenix741 22:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Note:I noticed that Image:YellowHelment.jpg was not taged, did you just miss it, or is there something alright with it? I would like to know so that i can change the other helments so that they will work. Phoenix741 00:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the REAL Stefan Faison

I decided to do a little name-search on myself just to see what comes up and i see a bunch of results coming to Wikipedia. Moslty about movies that I'm not even in. So, I decided to search a more around Wikipedia to see what else I cna find. Heres what I found: Some random girl coming on here saying shes my sister and positng that I'm in this unknown movie called Nancy Drew. But, one thing that "hoaxer" (as you guys called her/him) said that was true was that I'm going to be in the movie Prom Wars directed by Phil Price, which was filmed in Montreal. I'm also going to be in another Canada-based TV-show named "Victor" with Dillon Casey, and Drillbit Taylor with Owen Wilson. Now to answer the question that has been flying around: Do I belong on Wikipedia? In my opinion, I think I should, but others may think different because my movies havent come out yet. I'm not claiming to be a huge super star, but I think someone who has done notable work (like commercials for Old Navy and a grad. from John Robert Powers) should have an article...or atleast a stub of an article. I think if a reality show contestant can have some sort of spot on Wikipedia, I think someone like me (who has been working in the entertainment business almost my entire life) should have an article. It's your decison to make. I just apologize for the person that came on here.

-Stefan Faison —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stefplace70 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

I had a discussion with him on Talk:Stefan Faison (now speedied along with the article as db-repost). I don't buy a word of it. After all, three separate user names have created this material in the past; no reason to believe this one's different. There are now more credits in "upcoming" films on IMDB, but IMDB posts disclaimers on those films that the information is subject to change, i.e. not reliable. Regardless, the article may not be recreated without a Deletion Review, and the two AFD's (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Faison and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prom Wars) are still binding, and established firmly that IMDB is not, by itself, sufficient verification. Google search for "Prom Wars" +Faison brings up only IMDB and my Talk page. The information is dubious at best. The casts of teenage sex comedies tend to be twenty or so. If a 13 or 14-year-old is in the movie (the articles have been inconsistent with IMDB on the age), it would likely be a bit part as somebody's little brother. Fan-1967 14:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on Deletion Review, but I doubt he/she will try it. Positively guaranteed to get shot down. Nice work in finding the posting from Phil Price. That clinches it for me (as if I needed any convincing). Fan-1967 15:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Some anonymous post from some person on a message board doesent prove anything. Plus if you look on his page, there are actually TWO people claiming to be the director. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.190.139.174 (talk • contribs).

Neither does your claim, and given all that happend in this regard before, I'm willing to trust anybody saying you're not in a movie much more than I'm willing to trust you. Anyway, unless you can verify your claims with reliable sources, I doubt there'll be an article about you on Wikipedia. --Fritz S. (Talk) 20:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

HFabdul1.jpg

Thanks for the reminder. Anyway, that image was an accidental upload, and have no idea on how to revert. Thanks a lot for deleting it for us. :P Heraldo Filipino 19:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfabulous

Just curious. You deleted a section from the Unfabulous page that I submitted. What constitutes this to be nonsense? I'm sorry, did you work on the set? Have you personally interviewed Sue Rose, the writer? And just for your OWN sake(we don't want you to look uneducated on the matter) Fred Savage does exist, and he DID direct and offer his advice on this topic. This is also marked in the records of Nielson Media Research, which are public record. According to the IMDB, Fred Savage DID in fact direct several episodes of Unfabulous as well as Zoey 101 and Hanna Montana. There were four male directors for the show and Fred Savage was one of them. If you have ever watched the show, you would be aware of this outlandish phenomenom that in fact they do wear sandals and that Emma Roberts is barefoot in every episode. Who do you think came up with that idea? I mean, seriosly. I'd like your take on this. Because I am planning on reverting it with more reference sources. Sorry if you were not aware of this behind-the-scenes aspect of the show. But i am glad we were able to clear this up. I mean we wouldn't want a true die-hard fan of Emma's to be uninformed on the subject. Thanks for your time. --The Jax (Talk) 19:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

regarding your tagging of Image:AP11America.JPG

Hi, I noticed that you tagged the image Image:AP11America.JPG with the images for deletion tag, however it seems that you didn't list the image and your reasoning as to why it should be deleted at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. I thought you should be aware so that either this image can be deleted, or the IFD tag can be removed. Thanks -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 17:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm really really sorry!

I didn't relize that was an innapproriate link I put in I''s. I'm sooo sorry! It won't happen again! I promise! & Thank You for pointing it out to me. Again, I'm sorry! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kazekun (talk • contribs) 16:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Fritzbot

Is Fritzbot still operational? I see it hasn't had any edits in a few months. Finding fair use images that aren't being used is a daunting task when done manually.--NMajdan•talk 19:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Good, thats great to hear. If you ever to get some more free time, there is one thing I'd like to see the bot also do. Since it checks the File Links part of the image to see if it is linked anywhere, do you think it could also look for fair use images used outside of article namespace? So if it ran into a image that had "User:" or "Template:" or "User_talk:" it could copy the name of the image to a log file for human editors to go back and review. Just a recommendation.--NMajdan•talk 16:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. I just saw that your bot goes through Special:Unusedimages and not the fair use categories. Guess it couldn't do that then.--NMajdan•talk 16:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've been going through the orphaned images and doing them manually, which your bot appears to be do. As there are 104,428 orphaned images, could you use some help with this? I have permission to use AWB already, so could I run your bot code (but under my own bot account?) to help you? --MECU≈talk 23:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Are we really getting NR as a front page featured article!?

!! M.C. Brown Shoes 06:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC) I have returned the leprechaun image to the appropriate article I don't know how it got orphaned - it might have been vandalised? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ford_Media_Interceptor.jpg)

You can go ahead and speedily delete this older fair-use image from the Ford Press Release package - it has been replaced with Image:Ford-Interceptor-DC.jpg - a free image taken at a car show by another editor, as was requested on the original image page under the Fair Use rational. Thanks. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Marvel Runaways.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 19:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Need people with an opinion

Hey there. I noticed that in the past, you have participated in a discussion about Filmographies and lists of works in general here. There is now a RfC discussing this and more aspects here. It would be nice if you took a look and gave your comments on those matters. Thank you. theroachman^TC 11:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Joshua Middleton cover gallery

I'm not sure how examples of an artist's work in an article about the artist falls under the category of "decorative". Ford MF 18:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image removal

I see you removed the cover gallery from The End Is Nigh and was sent to me by the editor on request for use on Wikipedia and their use is to show the themes of each issue - having them in this form seemed a neater solution to having them higher in the article - so the copyright holder understodd the purpose they wre going to be put to and they also ilustrate a point in the tidyest possible way I could find, so don't exist in a vacuum. Equally WP:NOT#REPOSITORY doesn't appear to apply as the images are already in use on other entries Matt Timson and Boo Cook. So they weren't just being stored on Wikipedia for the purposes of the cover gallery but were in use elsewhere and they seemed relevant to the other entry so I put them there too. Hope that explains some of the thinking behind that. (Emperor 19:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for the clarification. The images aren't going anywhere so I'll have a ponder on that and see if they can be made more relevant to the entry, if not no big loss. (Emperor 20:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

Teruel image

I copied the image in the Battle of Teruel from the Wikipedia Polish Language article of the same name.

GenghisTheHun 02:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun

Is the new image ok? That was the image that had uploaded but the robot removed. I received a suggestion from an editor to take the image from another Wikipedia article as that meant that the image had already been approved. I took this image from either the Polish Language or Spanish Language, I forget now, article on the Battle of Teruel.

Many thanks,

GenghisTheHun 17:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun

No frivolous deletions please

Your changes to Janus Directive have been reversed. Next time check the copyright information on images you delete, and check out the Project guidelines. In this case you seem to have run afoul of Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics. Do behave. --Basique 14:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Jamie Lyon

Seeking suggestions on catergorisation of this picture, as I have sought permission to use this picture, and to use it on wikipedia as well as elsewhere. I was quite explicit in my language used to explain the situation to both the relevant St Helens authorities. Londo06 10:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Have changed it to the suggested cat Londo06 13:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Watermark, the people involved with St Helens were happy with the explanation of the transfer of ownership to myself and that I would be using the image on wikipedia. They understood the transferring of ownership. Can you please clarify an existing depiction clarification, not just trump it for deletion. I am looking for assistance in classification for the image. Londo06 13:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the clarification. After reading the Watermark blurb, it sounded like it was a pre-cursor to deletion. Londo06 14:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:JamieSaintLyon.JPG

Looked through and many senior people seem to be happy with the picture. Work has been done to make sure that this picture is okay to be put into the public domain and also wikipedia. Seems like you are just picking on the guy. Alexsanderson83 10:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Actors and Filmakers

Hey see my proposals at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Actor and Filmmakers and the main WP Film and Biography talk page. Know anybody who is interested? Actors and all film people articles need a body on wikipedia to upkeep them asthey need more focus -it would be a part of Biogrpahy and Film. If you are interested or know somebody who would be, please let them know and whether you think it is a good progession for the project or not. Please leave your views at the council or biogrpahy main talk page. THanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 14:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Image Tags

Cool, I can do that for the album covers. As for the Taking Back Sunday one, I'm not totally sure about that. I mean, if someone puts it on the internet, doesn't that mean I could use it? ShandraShazam 22:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:21april1967principals.png

Thanks for your message. I have modified the captions to conform to the standard. Take care. Dr.K. 14:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Danke schön. Dr.K. 16:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:MWRAOverview.jpg

Okay, I will look at it. It certainly should be okay under "fair use." --LymanSchool 15:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I put in a {:{Fair use in|Article}} tag, but I left the disputed tag for your review. Also the Template:MWRA overview has been corrupted and is now only transcluded into MWRA, so the whole thing will probably go away soon anyway. Originally, I had all waterbodies, that came under the auspicies of the MWRA, transclude that template. Now somebody, with no clue about the water system, has cut them all apart. --sigh! ---LymanSchool 15:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment regarding the questionable image of Bruce Hornsby

Cheers: I have just added this note to the image page, hopefully this will help clear things up. Please let me know if you have any questions. I am very sorry for uploading the same image twice with two different names, that was a complete mistake. Bear in mind the fact that the other version of the image is properly tagged and does have the confirmation ticket from mOTRS...the fact that this improperly tagged copy of the image exists at all is really news to me...a complete error on my part. In fairness, it was probably the result of the high level of contention surrounding image-uploading to the Bruce Hornsby article during those days/weeks. I must have forgotten that I had already uploaded this image. Anyways, here's the note:

I am the original uploader, and that is absolutely the wrong license. My apologies. Snidleysnide 20:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Subsequently, I did properly tag the image and retrieve permissions from the copyright holder, these were sent to mOTRS and confirmed and tickets were added. I must have accidentally renamed/reuploaded this image as BruceCentralPark.jpg...which is an exact replica of this image...that other version is the one currently used in Bruce Hornsby, and it is properly tagged and has the mOTRS confirmation ticket. This image is a "forgotten" copy of that image, technically permissions have been requested and confirmed for this image's use, so one could retag the image and request a ticket from mOTRS, but there is obviously no need to have two copies of the same image (with different names). It seems a worthwhile candidate for deletion, so long as the properly tagged and ticketed replica image, BruceCentralPark.jpg, is left unaltered. Snidleysnide 20:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to contact me, via talk page, should you have any additional questions or concerns. It is of utmost importance to me that the properly documented version of this image, BruceCentralPark.jpg (not BruuuceCentralPark.jpg), remain intact and remain in use in the article. Thanks. Snidleysnide 20:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete Image

You may go ahead and delete the image RoughRider1.png as it is no longer used on either page it had been on, plus the school's logo was updated a few years ago and that logo is used in the athletics section. Thanks! --JonRidinger 00:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

'Crazy' and the Bulgarian charts

Hello.I hope I am not making a mistake at the moment...again :) I suppose you've already understood that I'm from Bulgaria.And it's not just 'Crazy' - 'Last Night', 'Red Dress' and so on - information about the connected with these songs Bulgarian Charts has been added today.I know that I must quote.But this is impossible.

The problem comes from our country.We have official national chart - Bulgaria TOP 100.All these 100 songs had place on one of the national TV channels but because of the low rating this TV programme doesn't exist now.It stopped being on about 2 years ago. Bulgarian TOP 100 has its own website - http://bulgariantop.bg/ - but it hasn't been updated since then. However,there was a decision - the website http://musicbg.net , but,unfortunately,about 11 months ago it stopped working.

And now...Well,some radio stations broadcast the radio programme 'Bularian TOP 20' - top 20 of the Bulgarian TOP 100, the two highest debuts,the two greatest gainers and the 'golden hits' - the #1-s since its foundation in 1999.But it's just a radio programme.No internet source.

The only decision,according to me, is to quote the forum,where I save the information about the current chart.But...forum?!It sounds really...suspicious...no one would believe. But there's something worse - Bulgaria is a member of the EU since 1 January and everyone is intersted in the music charts here.But because there's no online Bulgarian TOP 100,they use some radio charts.For example,according to an article, Say It Right is one of the number 1 hits in Bulgaria, but in fact it just climbed to #4.But in lots of famous radio stations it was #1.In the http://apcchart.com is written BULGARIA TOP 10 - another source for lots of the Wikipedians.But this is just the chart of radio EXPRESS and lots of the songs are not played anywhere else.

And is there a decision?!...I hope it would be found...But till then... :(

Greetings,Goldddfish :)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goldddfish (talk • contribs).

Adoption

Haha, that would be great if you would adopt me. It's quite overwhelming when you're first starting to edit wikipedia, so much to learn. Lannah 02:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adopting me! Sorry that I haven't gotten back to you, i've been fairly busy with other commitments outside of wikipedia. And towards the New Zealand pages, gadfium has already talked to me about it. I've started helping out in those areas too, but thanks for the links anyway. Lannah 22:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you mind explaining to me what the whole 'citing references' stuff is about? Thanks. Lannah 00:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, long time no speak haha. I've been fairly slack with editing recently, i'm pretty sure i've got most of the editing stuff down. AlthoughI was just wondering about bots and how they work on wikipedia. Grr. Lannah 09:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Single entry

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive1#Template:Single entry. This template needs to be changed to prose and deprecated; regardless, there's no reason to include track listings of singles in an article about the album. ShadowHalo 19:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable Fair Use image Image:Emma_Roberts.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Emma_Roberts.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 03:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bergman Casablanca.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Bergman Casablanca.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:Fair use and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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. feydey 10:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:DM&J Take Care Of Business EP.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShadowHalo 04:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No loss to me if you want to dispute the photo. But you're just proving that America is turning into a bureaucratic, Corporation-run state :) Thanks for supporting the little guy :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Itchy01ca (talk • contribs).

Date Format

In response to your comment, I agree with you. But I only intend to change the date format on non American articles to the international date format ie. dd mm yyyy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.0.120.146 (talk • contribs).

Orphaned non-free image (Image:SpaceMonkeyz vs Gorillaz LaikaComeHome.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:SpaceMonkeyz vs Gorillaz LaikaComeHome.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 16:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)