User talk:Melensdad

Kristi Snowcat

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Kristi Snowcat, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.kristisnowcat.com/history/index.asp, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), you can comment to that effect on Talk:Kristi Snowcat. Then you should do one of the following:

• Make a note on the original website that re-use is permitted under the GFDL and state at Talk:Kristi Snowcat where we can find that note; or
• Send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Kristi Snowcat.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Benn Newman 22:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NONE of the text, images, etc was taken from the www.kristisnowcat.com/history/index.asp webpage!!! I took the information from my own files, my own materials and form my own snowcat discussion forum. There was part of the operators manual that was copied, however that manual, which I own, does not have any copywrite marks on any pages.

The owner of www.kristisnowcat.com is jealous of the success of my snowcat forums and he claims ownership of every bit of information that is related to Kristi. That is simply idiotic. I took nothing from him!

Kristi Snowcat

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Kristi Snowcat, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Kristi Snowcat. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Benn Newman 22:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the information about the Kristi Snowcats was copies from the Kristi Snowcat web page!!!

I took the information from my own Kristi files, information on my snowcat discussion forums, and from information provided to me by Kristi owners.

Image copyright problem with Image:Brochure st.1.gif

Thank you for uploading [[:Image:Brochure st.1.gif]]. However, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.

Benn Newman 22:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I am responding in the correct place, but this image is from my personal files. The copywrite would probably have expired sometime MANY YEARS ago as the company is no longer in business and has not been in business for 20+ years.

http://www.forumsforums.com

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--Hu12 23:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1]Links normally to be avoided Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.--Hu12 23:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link to ForumsForums is not spam, it is the only active source for real information on many obsolete machines. It is the largest forum for obsolete and antique snowcats in the world. Much of the information there is not available on any other website.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Melensdad (talk • contribs) 23:48, 23 February 2007.

see External links policy, Links normally to be avoided--Hu12 00:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK fine, I disagree with you, but I guess that doesn't mean to much since you can simply keep deleting it. I choose not to play games so I won't.

You don't have to disagree with me, those are the policies. --Hu12 01:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KRISTI

We have had another complaint from KRISTI about copyright violations. If you are going to re-create the article, please be absolutely scrupulous in using only your own words, and do not upload any photograph that you have not taken yourself. As long as you upload only your own images, identified as such, and you take care not to use wording even close to that on the KRISTI website, you should be fine. Thank you for your co-operation, Guy (Help!) 22:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing the guy who is complaining is a guy named Chris Roth, who sometimes posts on websites under the name CAROTH. He claims that he owns everything related to Kristi snowcats. He claims copyright rights for anything that he posts so he posts parts of manuals and then claims that he has the copyright to the text, despite the fact that he copied it from a manual.

The ONLY thing that I posted that he could even remotely claim any so-called ownership to were a couple images from U.S. Patent Office documents. It is my understanding that those documents, which date back to the 1940s and 1950s, are copyright free. Further, I did not take those images from his website or any other website. They are digital images of the U.S. Patent Office documents. Any other image or piece of information posted was from something I either created, personally researched, researched with another friend. The information on Kristi is scarce, but it exists in more places that just the Kristi website.

Further, I do not have access to the Kristi website so I cannot copy his text or images, yet you seem to take his word for the fact that I used his website as my source materials.

Please explain to me what I could have possibly done to violate copyright laws given the facts presented. Thank you in advance, I am not trying to cause problems I am trying to provide information on all brands of obsolete and antique snowcats and have created several pages and provided information to several others. I am trying to be a productive and honest contributor to Wikipedia and simply need to understand what I did wrong (and I think I did nothing wrong at this point).

--melensdad--

• Hi. Chris contends that the production numbers cannot be cited unless we reference them from his website. That's an odd claim, but there is no harm in it. Please add refs for the figures you cite, using this format: <ref>[http://www.sourceofdata.com Source of data]</ref>, this will result in the references being automagically compiled at the bottom. Could you do that for me please? Do be sure to credit his website where a figure is sourced from it. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 13:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris posted production numbers on my website (before we banned him for insulting people, making wild accusations, and using the PM system to harass other members). He also posted production numbers on "The Samba" Volkswagon website. So if the numbers were on my website then how can he claim that I stole them from his website?

Chris also made a past claim to Wikipedia that when I posted information from the operators manual, and cited the operators manual, that I violated his copyright because he also has the operators manual on his website. He sells the operators manuals for $10 each. I give away operators manuals for free for over a dozen different antique machines. How could I have violated the copyright if I cited the source and if the original source is not copyrighted? Yet Wikipedia pulled the Kristi Snowcat article previously.

I'd be happy to photo copy all my Kristi materials and FAX them to you if that would put an end to this silly stuff.

Melensdad 16:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)melensdad[reply]

Here is another thought, what if you repost the page and I simply eliminate the production numbers completely? I've been working on several other snowcat pages and some of them have production numbers and some of them don't. I could simply rewrite the text to eliminate it.

What say you? Melensdad 16:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)melensdad[reply]

• The page is back up already, after your comments earlier. I think it's better simply to attribute the production numbers. You could simply say "according to Chris Roth, production numbers are x". It doesn't matter too much, but attribution would be good since he states that it is his own research (and I don't think that's disputed). He also says that the article and the history section are factually incorrect. I'll leave it to you to shout for the marines if he becomes disruptive about that. WP:ANI is a good place to contact admins, or get me at user talk:JzG. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I simply re-wrote it to eliminate the grief. It is no big deal. I would prefer to simply not fight with him so if eliminating things stops the bickering then I will simply omit a trivial bit of data.

As for the history being incorrect, he claims that the company was a commercial success. I wrote that it was not. Using his numbers, over a 12 year span they produced less than 180 snowcats. That is about 15 snowcats per year. In a typical year for other brands they could have produced 75 to 100 snowcats of EACH model they produced. The model numbers are correct, the company production years are correct, the patent office information is correct, the spec sheets list the correct engine, transmission, and capabilities. The spec sheets back up the information in the articles and the book and visa versa. So I would suggest the information is correct.

But I do have a question for you. Several of the images seem to have vanished? Is it possible someone deleted those?

Melensdad 18:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)melensdad[reply]

Ant4 1.gif

It appears it was deleted by User:JzG probably for copyright reasons.Geni 01:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watermarked images

A lot (all?) of the images you have uploaded contains digital watermarking or credits in the image itself. In user-created images that is a violation of Wikipedia's image use policy. Could you please upload new versions without the text in them. Thanks! // Liftarn

Sorry, I didn't realize it was not allowed (there are a lot of things I'm still learning. It will take me several days to reload load the images but I will get them done. Melensdad 14:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Melensdad[reply]

I removed the text from a few of your images (such as Image:Kristi at Bradley1.jpg) in an image editor, but if you can upload the text-free originals over them, that'd be even better. Thanks in advance! —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on it. It took a long to get all those photos resized & edited, it will take me another couple days. But I have about 25% of them done so far. Melensdad 15:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Melensdad[reply]

Hi. Thanks for reuploading the images without the watermark and your valuable contributions to Wikipedia! When you do, could you please remove the {{watermark}} tag from the image description page too? Thanks! --MECU≈talk 16:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on it. I uploaded a LOT of photos from my files, most were only kept in very large file sizes so I have to go back to each file, resized it to bring down not only the dimensions but the file size too. I will look at the descriptions as I progress through the files. I think I am about 50% done now. Give me a bit more time, I'll plod through them. I'm just glad I found out about this now, before I started up a couple more pages that I have planned to add, which will also have photos on them. Melensdad 19:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Melensdad[reply]

Unless the file size is over 4 MB or something there is really no need to scale them down as the wiki software does that for you. Also you may upload them to commons instead. // Liftarn

Most are 6MB. At least the newer photos are. But I am making progress, should be done today.

Sorry to bother you, but it looks like you missed to upload a non watermarked version of Image:LMC-1200.jpg. I have been transfering the pictures to Commons and I think that's one of the few remaining. // Liftarn

Ok, I uploaded a new version with the same file name. Sorry I missed that one, I thought I had all of them corrected. Melensdad 17:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Melensdad[reply]

Thanks. You can see the images you've uploaded at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=Melensdad&page= I would reccomend you to get an account at Wikimedia Commons and upload the pictures there instead. // Liftarn

License tagging for Image:Kidney Stone1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kidney Stone1.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I edited it to indicate that it was MY kidney stone, in fact I passed that stone on the 23rd of February. When I uploaded it I thought I selected that the image could be use by Wikipdia and any of its users, I can not figure out how to check the copyright permission.

You'll have to put one of these on it. If you're more used to picking a license from the drop-down menu, you could always copy the appropriate tag from of the other images you've uploaded. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I can't figure out how to do it. I'm new to contributing and still trying to figure things out but when I go to the edit this page tab on the image page I don't see any license options. Can you just edit it for me or give me (talk s_l_o_w & LOUD to me) exact instructions on how to do it because I can't figure it out Melensdad 02:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)melensdad[reply]

There is no license options menu on the "edit this page" form, you only get it when you upload a new image. (There probably should be, but that's another matter entirely...) If you didn't select the correct license the first time you uploaded an image, what you need to do is look at some other image that does have the license you want, click the "edit this page" tab and copy the lines that say something like:

== Licensing ==
{{self|GFDL-no-disclaimers|cc-by-2.5}}

(Or just copy them from right here.) You paste those lines to the image that didn't have a license and save. Now the image description page should have a new section title saying "Licensing" and a nice fancy box under it saying something like "I, the author of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses..." There, that's it, you're done. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm really sorry but I have no earthy clue how to do what you want me to do! I went to the kidney stone image that I uplaoded and I cannot seem to add in any copyright tag. Melensdad 16:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)melensdad[reply]

Okay, I went and did it for you. All I did was click the "edit this page" tab, paste the two lines I quoted above into the text box (and remove the "untagged" bit) and click "save". I assume the license tag I put on the image (I copied it from Image:Kristi at Bradley1.jpg) is one that's okay with you; if not, let me know and I'll change it (or you can do it yourself if you manage to figure it out). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matchbox

Now I appreciate the background of your presentation of Snow-Trac models in the Matchbox article. It's obviously your great passion (as model cars are mine). However, in all fairness, I wonder if the blister pack and the puzzle were already enough? Both were very good in the context of the article, the first showing a development in the 1-75 series (model quality, packaging), the second showing a series that is often overlooked (the puzzles).

However, I feel that the new one is almost too much of a good thing. Yes, it was a good model and yes, it is interesting, but the article is about Matchbox and not about Snow Trac. Can we please remove the newest photo from the Matchbox article?

Hoping you'll understand and, maybe, you'll appreciate the value of that 3rd photo appearing in a Snow Trac article as being more than its appearance in the Matchbox one.

Jtnet 11:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I understand that you may think I've overdone it with the Snow Trac representation in the Matchbox article, it is because that I what I have a complete series of to represent. It strikes me that if you want to remove a photo from the Matchbox page, the one that should/could be removed is the one that shows the toy in the original package.

In fact the newest one I posted is probably the best photo as it shows 3 different version of the same toy, all three had the same manufacturer's model/code number, yet all 3 are clearly different. So from the historical and collector viewpoints, the last photo I posted is clearly the most important and illustrative of the three. If you'd like to edit the page, that is your option, but I would strongly suggest that if you remove a photo that you remove the Snow Trac that is shown in the blister package. Melensdad 15:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Melensdad[reply]

- - - - -

First of all, thanks for the constructive response. While I disagree with your ranking of the photos, I want to make a suggestion that may make you happy and me happy, but more importantly may improve the Matchbox article.

To the rankings: You have to see the photos in the perspective of a Matchbox article, not a Snow Trac article. So both the packaging photo (illustrating an early blister pack) and the jigsaw photo (illustrating one of those "other" series they made besides cars) are very interesting, although the blister pack one could be more in focus... But it's good and it can be placed appropriately.

The other photo sounds good in theory, but it isn't really. Why? Well, of course you're right that three different molds used for the same model, i.e. a variation, makes a collector's heart beat faster. But in fact, your photo doesn't show this at all; it's just 3 pictures of a #35 Snow Trac. It has no real redeeming value, except that the topic of variations — which is not really elaborated in the photo (nor in the article thus far) — is touched upon. But not in any way that would make the photo "necessary".

So now a proposal to you: Use the photo you have, and take some new shots, as follows: Close-ups of the differences between each the models. Make sure everything is clearly lit and in sharp focus. Maybe add a bit of highlighting from a graphics program (circle the differences or arrow them or something). Add the new bits to the existing photo/s. If you do that, I will see to it that the article is also expanded to explain the value of variations in model car collecting, and your photo will be in there.

What do you think?

Jtnet 17:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion sounds very reasonable to me but I do have a problem in that my collection is in my office and I am stuck at home recovering from surgery for several more weeks. I also would have no problem with anyone who has a different example of multiple variations of the same model substituting their photo for the Snow Trac photo. My intent was not to turn the Matchbox thread to a Snow Trac thread, but to illustrate the different toys. I simply don't have other Matchbox toys that illustrate this, but you can see the white decals on one image, the plain sides on another and the embossed sides on the third image. I will try to take better photos in a couple weeks. Again, I have no problem with someone else removing this series photo and replacing it with a different series photos showing a different Matchbox toy. Melensdad 19:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Melensdad[reply]

- - - -

First of all, "Get well soon!" Second, re. the photos, thanks for your cooperation. I have made changes in the caption of the "3 Snow-Trac" picture, so that it now reads as follows:

3 versions of the same mid-'60s Matchbox Snow Trac toy, all designated #35, yet each a different variation: While the model pictured in the middle has the words "Snow-Trac" cast into the sides, the 1st has plain-cast sides and "Snow-Trac" decals; the 3rd version has plain sides and no brand badging

You stated in your original remarks that these were from 3 different molds. If that is the case, then please do prepare the photos as we mentioned. If it is not, let me know. A clearer "highlighting" of variations is still preferable, so any close-up and/or graphics-program work you could do would be appreciated. I will leave your photo in for now, as it illustrates a point; when I draft a section on variations etc., I will probably move the photo to that position.

Jtnet 12:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspam

I have noticed that you are vigorously pushing the forumsforums link. I'm adding the spam tag so you can familiarize yourself with wikipedia link standards. Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --I already forgot 04:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I actually am trying to post appropriate links. I linked to several very relavant websites that included history, factory sites, review sites, and one of the sites I linked to was a tractor page from ForumsForums. But I found it interesting that you removed several other sites as well and I don't quite understand why you did that. There are several branches of the ForumsForums site, some are discussions, which I understand cannot be linked, but some are history or information pages; however I will concede to your authority and not link to even those pages. But why was CompactTractorReview.Com removed? That one I really don't understand. Melensdad 04:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Melensdad[reply]

Like I said, wikipedia pages should not be used as a link directory or a long list of links you find of value. If the links have value, the information should be included in the article page. If you are in the habit of adding lots of links instead of content, discuss adding the links on the talk page so it doesn’t come off as linkspam. All this is covered at WP:EL and associated pages. --I already forgot 04:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have just started adding content to two tractor/equipment pages, including uploading some photographs. I have a lot more information to add to those pages, and then I intended to add several other pages for specific implements because I noticed that Wikipedia is lacking in that area with some pages but lacking many common implements. The links I added would be relevant to the additional discussion that I have planned to add to both the tractor and the loader pages. There will probably be different links for the implement pages, but it is likely there will be some crossover. And many of them will be discussed in the articles when I finish with my contributions. Perhaps I need to organize my efforts better but I've simply been trying to add content when I find time to pull my source material and insert it. Melensdad 04:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Melensdad[reply]

Vintage snowmobiling

Hi, I came across this article this morning when you added a link to it from snowmobile. I was wondering if you had the time and will to rewrite it to make something more encyclopedia-like (it reads like an informal essay right now). In its current state, it would be likely to be deleted one day or an other :/. Regards -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on several projects and hope to get to Vintage Snowmobiling page as one of those. I'm in the middle of gathering various military snowcat and snowmobile useage and linking specific brands of snowcats/snowmobiles to various nation's armies and or to various weapons when the snowcat was the basis for a weapons platform. The Vintage Snowmobiling page looks like an essay on rules for racing old sleds, but there is much more to it and that is what I plan to work on adding. One of the things I am doing to help me keep some of these organized is to make sure I get the categories listed on the bottom of the pages so I can make sure I keep up on the pages I am working on and getting their respective topics upgraded with the associated category information. I'm also in the middle of developing several compact utility tractor and implement pages/updates to pages. Melensdad 19:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Melensdad[reply]

External links

Hello Melensdad - please do not add list of manufacturers to (otherwise appropriately) corresponding articles. We cannot on Wikipedia have such external link list - otherwise, to give an extreme example, every joghurt manufacturer worldwide could claim that he has a 'right' to have his external link on the joghurt article. Believe me, similar things have happened.

What you can do if you like is to write notable, referenced articles about the companies you'd like to list, and then list to them via the 'see also'. Cheers and happy editing. MadMaxDog 05:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I was referring to your links at snow grooming, which I cut down a bit... see also my edit summary MadMaxDog 05:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well for the life of me I can't understand why external links that link back to manufacturers mentioned in some articles are allowed on Wikipedia and not on others. There are literally dozens of pages that I've visited on Wikipedia that allow links to manufacturers websites. It seems like most instances that allow putting an external link to a manufacturer also have the manufacturer mentioned in the article, making it relevant. I do understand that Wikipedia should not become a link index. Also, I found it interesting that some of the discussion was slightly altered when some of the relevant manufacturers were removed? Grooming equipment for ski slopes is highly specialized, grooming equipment for snowmobile trails is often rudimentary and basic, and, in addition to a mixture of modern machines, commonly include antique snowcats from the 1960's/70's, ASV track trucks, dual track snowmobiles or track converted ATVs pulling simple non-hydraulic drags. For XC-ski trails, the equipment is even more basic and it is no uncommon to see XC-ski drags made of wood and metal that have been in service for 50 years. Seems to me the article has been watered down a little bit, the links to Sure Trac, Tucker Sno-Cat and Piston Bully would have given readers who wanted more in depth information a far better look at the different types of snow groomers. Now I will grant you, I am not a professional snow groomer, however I do own my own snowcat and am the founder of the most popular snowcat discussion website on the internet. I'm also a member of several snowcat restoration websites and a couple of snow grooming discussion boards. I do not claim expert knowledge, but I certainly have a more than passing knowledge and interest. Melensdad 08:39, 1 May 2007

Derrial Book

I assume you left the anonymous comments on my user page regarding Derrial Book. I removed the phrase " clearly there is a Christian influence to his character" because a) it is repetitive of earlier statments and therefore unnecessary, and b) the "clearly" implies a point of view. I could easily state that "clearly" there is a Buddhist influence on his character (Buddhists, of course, also have monks and some of his philosophy appears to be more Buddhist than Christian). Shsilver 16:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Detonics Nemesis Prototype 3.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Detonics Nemesis Prototype 3.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Detonics Nemesis Prototype 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Detonics Nemesis Prototype 1.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Detonics Nemesis prototype.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Detonics Nemesis prototype.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Melensdad. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Detonics Nemesis prototype.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Detonics Nemesis prototype.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. B (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Detonics Nemesis Prototype 3.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Detonics Nemesis Prototype 3.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]