I wish you and your loved ones all the happiness in the world this coming year.
Cheetah Girls
It was either in M Magzine or Bop Magazine. I can't remember which one. It was also in Blast Magazine but these are al small teen magazines and they don't have anything online about it. It's in Blast! Magazine for sure, because I have it, but I have no way to upload it onto the computer. It was also annoced by Adrienne Bailon in the October issue of Disney Adventures. Jtervin08:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Title: Blast Presents: Catching up with the cast of High School Musical & other teen TV stars
Date given on issue: Spring 2007>br>
Page: 38
Author: None given
Why, thank you sir, for those kind words! It's good to be back (ish) and I really like what you've done with the place. I kinda dropped out of view when becoming involved with the organization of Quakecon (the event, not the article) some time ago, but intend to resume some wikitasks here and there. My main Wiki pipe dream would be the FA-isation of the Sarah McLachlan article, which is in real need of some major overhaul and restructuring (the article, not the artist). We'll see. In any case, feel free to contact me if you need some help with one of your editing endeavours! Cheers, --Plek18:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I see you added an infobox to this article. I would appreciate your explaining why you feel an infobox that simply reiterates facts already in the article is necessary. I realize they unfortunmately have become commonplace, but personally I don't understand their purpose. If Wikipedia is to be considered an encyclopedia, how does an infobox fit in with that concept? Thanks for your input! SFTVLGUY216:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes
Had I been active in Wikipedia at the time the infoboxes were nominated for deletion, I definitely would have voted against them. Are you familiar with USA Today? It's a newspaper designed for those on the run, people too busy to read in-depth coverage of news events. It's filled with blurbs and colorful charts and graphics designed for those who want to know everything at a mere glance. That is exactly how I view the infobox. I agree with everything you said re: consistency . . . it's just too bad the infobox is considered an acceptable part of Wiki format.
I'm a big contributor of articles about plays and musicals. I can't begin to tell you how much those differ in style. Slowly but surely I'm trying to re-write them to conform to the way I feel they should be written. So far, nobody has objected!
Thanks for the comments! I have just finished uploading and documenting the bunch, and the result can be admired/mocked here: Talk:Dannii Minogue#Sample jukebox. I think I'll leave it to the capable hands of my fellow Wikipedians to insert the boxes into the article. And yes, one or two extra "early" songs would probably be a good idea. Let's see if any special requests come in.
I have cobbled together a fair-use clause, using yours and those of others as examples. I think the result is decent enough to pass muster. It might even satisfy the MAFIAA (although, given their modus operandi, some bribes might prove more effective in keeping them at bay :). --Plek22:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:MCHammerPleaseHammerDontHurtThemAlbumcover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:MCHammerPleaseHammerDontHurtThemAlbumcover.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 BJBot01:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Madonna picture...
I've uploaded a new picture that isn't butt ugly to the Madge article like the "performing" picture was. This is, to me, a FAIR USE promotional image like the images we've used in the Jean Harlow article. If this is not ok, can we please find an attractive image of her? What are papparazi for anyway? To take pictures that are usable by no one? PatrickJ8323:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Timothy Hutton
hiya - I came across your comment somewhere about wanting some uniformity in infoboxes for Oscar winners. Timothy Hutton had none, so I added one that I think is correct, but could you have a look? Thanks - hope all's well. Tvoz| talk08:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rossrs, I notice you made an good analysis of the Palm Island article here last year, I was wondering if you had any further comments in light of all the activity there at the moment due to it being the current Collaboration of the Fortnight. Due to your experience of bringing articles up to feature status, your opinions are of huge interest to me as that is supposed to be objective of ACOTF. Any input you can add at the open tasks list would be much appreciated as we only have a week left. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian14:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:KylieMinoguewithStockAitkenWaterman.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:KylieMinoguewithStockAitkenWaterman.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 BJBot03:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Films Newsletter
The January 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Nehrams202006:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Boney M.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Boney M.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 BJBot04:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: 3RR question
When that happens, WP:BLP is right behind us: "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages." :) RadioKirk (u|t|c)14:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:MattDamonJuliaStilesBourneSupremacy.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:MattDamonJuliaStilesBourneSupremacy.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 BJBot05:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Thank you
Welcome to the Twilight Zone indeed! :) In any case, and in the interest of WP:AGF, you might want to take a look at [1] and [2]. Both edits got wiped out by my anti-discussion-blanking revert. It looks like the anonymous IP editor tried to make constructive changes to the article—but did so on the talk page. Maybe you can make something out of it. Have a nice day/night! --Plek07:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of listing a bunch of IPs as sock puppets. Is this wrong? I'm following the directions and examples on the sock puppet page. Am I not supposed to be tagging each page? thanks Rossrs09:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read the second part of my message. You made an error on one of the ones you did. It created a regular article instead of a user page. Turlo Lomon09:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they are being really persistently annoying, drop a word to the admins' incident noticeboard and ask them to decide whether anybody warrants blocking. There isn't any need for a sockpuppet check if they're all doing roughly the same thing - their behaviour alone will nail them. Flyingtoaster133713:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got your message; feel free to use my edits as evidence in any way you like. By the way, querying WHOIS for the IP addresses in your suspected sock list leads to JPNIC[3], and shows that they are all on the same network:
Network Information:
a. [Network Number] 219.104.0.0/16
b. [Network Name] INFOWEB
g. [Organization] InfoWeb(Fujitsu Ltd.)
m. [Administrative Contact] YK13517JP
n. [Technical Contact] KN6902JP
n. [Technical Contact] TK13654JP
p. [Nameserver] ns1.hyper.web.ad.jp
p. [Nameserver] ns3.hyper.web.ad.jp
[Assigned Date] 2002/06/12
[Return Date]
[Last Update] 2006/03/07 04:14:14(JST)
Less Specific Info.
----------
FUJITSU LIMITED
[Allocation] 219.104.0.0/16
...and the same contact info for network 218.217.0.0/16. Might be useful information somehow. Please let me know if there's anything I can do. Good luck! --Plek18:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to thank you for your constructive and reasoned feedback on my post. I was unaware of the guideline for lead edits and can now become a better editor because of it. /cheer
fritte14:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Toomuchtrivia tags
Many of the tags were added to pages that had only three or four trivia notes. I'm sorry I did not have the time to look over and review each one individually, but I believed, as I was right, that other editors such as yourselves would reinstate if the tag did indeed make sense. However, when this ip address had more than a hundred edits all with the same tag, and all within a couple of minutes of each other, how can it be anything but disruptive. I'm not saying they were all out of place, but a good number were.TheGreenFaerae23:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:DianaDors.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:DianaDors.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Hey there. I noticed that in the past, you have participated in a discussion about Filmoraphies 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. theroachmanTC10:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:AStarisBorn1954.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:AStarisBorn1954.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 BJBot15:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From Claudette To Vivien
That's great news! What fun. Nothing I like better than rewriting gibberish into English.
But seriously though. My suggestion would be to let our Osaka cinephile write himself out, do all his edits for as long as he likes and when he has nothing more to add (hopefully), then do 1 big revert, rather than keep reverting every addition, because that only seems to provoke him to more depths of triviality. That's what I'd do.
The February 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023talk23:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I wanted to point out to you a new overcategorization guideline. It calls into question the appropriateness of a category that you created, Category:Quebec actors. Before taking this and similar categories to Cfd, I thought I would check in with you first. --Vbd (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I was wondering if you could send the permission you have from the creator of the photo to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and include the following link in the e-mail:
I've forwarded the email to them (I've largely changed email addresses, so *that* was fun finding it). Btw, there's another free image of Jake here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but we can't add text, then source it to a Wikimirror. That is essentially the same thing as using Wikipedia to source itself and that is not sufficient to verify text. I probably should have clarified that on the talkpage...--Isotope2312:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
I know what you mean... sifting thorough 20 changes to discern the changes that are actually valid is getting to be a bit of a pain.--Isotope2300:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Refs and paragraphs
Regarding this edit: I've been using refs sparingly, including at the end of its necessity even if there are separate paragraphs between the start and end of a section using the one source (the reason: I think using the same source in successive paragraphs is as redundant as in successive sentences). Have I been wrong all this time? RadioKirk (u|t|c)01:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are obviously an experienced Wikipedian. Could you explain your reverting the photos I uploaded for Grace Kelly? I am not familiar with the rules for licensing, etc., but I do believe the photos I used were more appropriate for the article. Thanks for your help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ermorse (talk • contribs) 03:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you for your explanation of the image use. You're certainly an asset to this great experiment--keep up the good work! Ermorse23:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes
Okie dokie! Got it! And you have keen observation, you caught me putting infoboxes. Is that bad? I think not at all. I just want all the actors' articles to have infoboxes (What do you think?). :) Ok, I'll fixed the other articles that I've made. Thanks for correcting me and now I'll always put in my mind birth and age template only for living... ok... thanks! Hedwig0407 (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that what I mean, consistency to all people's articles. As of now, Im just doing female actors and after that I'll do male actors then to authors. Thank you :) Hedwig0407 (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The March 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated notice by Cbrown1023talk00:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blondie (band)
Hey, thanks for catching that vandalism edit to Blondie. If you check the article history you'll see I've reverted it a bunch of times in the past for identical reasons: non-existent Grammys, chart position inflations, etc. I've definitely kept the article in my watchlist. User is using several anon IPs of course..... - eo22:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All those images have {{tv-screenshot}} tags, therefore they're needed for each episode. The one you put up for deletion for "Exchange" was for the infobox, until it was replaced with a duplicate. ---- DanTD15:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no, I didn't tag them for deletion. I tagged them as missing source information needed to justify fair use and notified the uploader who then added the necessary information. This was in April 2006. They have since been listed for deletion by another user, so you would need to send a message to that user if you wish to comment. They are currently tagged - by someone else - as lacking a fair use rationale. The tag that has been added explains what is required to fix the problem. Rossrs21:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've seen the error of my ways. But even though I didn't upload any of them, I stand by the title of my message. ---- DanTD00:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hi Rossrs! How are you? Havent talked to u in a while...
I deleted the 'political views' and 'diet and exercise' sections from the Madonna page. I 'discussed' why as well. Care to opine? LOL....thanks! PatrickJ8322:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very knowledgeable about this subject, but it sure appears to me that our sockpuppeting friend there is engaging in tendentious editing. I'd fully support you boldly going back to whatever version from the past you feel is more appropriate. At this point I'm getting very close to initiating a ban discussion about him because at this is pretty much a single purpose account and because of the ISP he uses, blocking is only a stop gap.--Isotope2312:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all that odd given the fact he has stated he is Japanese with a few of his past accounts and that IP is a Japanese dialup... but right, the problem here is the fact that the editor doesn't want to discuss anything. I'll chalk up some of it to English being his second language, but continuing to add WP:POV, WP:OR, and rejecting any attempt to discuss is a big problem.--Isotope2313:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right... I found that pretty amusing too. I agree, there are nuances here that he is missing, but it is his attitude that is the problem here, not English as a secondary language. We have plenty of ESL contributors here who are very productive participants in the community. Some of this misunderstandings are probably rooted in language, but the way he approaches article edits and working with others is the reason I started a community ban discussion. He is making more work for everyone else.--Isotope2315:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've found four more accounts of apparently Japanese origin that have been editing numerous Claudette Colbert film articles in a similar way to Wptfe: Svsvtkag, Fjykbgv, JadaDeville, and M.A.Dicker. --PhantomS03:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
April 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The April 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by BrownBot21:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:AnneFrankDiaryofaYoungGirl1995.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:AnneFrankDiaryofaYoungGirl1995.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. BetacommandBot03:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Dean's huge fan
Hey, Ross - whaddyamean? - maybe the guy's father weighed 300 pounds! Nice to see you! By the way - I stopped arguing with Binks or whatever his name is over on Bee Gees about keeping the extremely short line about having their major success when they returned to England.... I mean, who cares? I won't be surprised if some English chauvinist changes it, but c'est la vie! Cheers! Tvoz|talk23:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Valerie's Birth Year
I serve on the Hollywood Board of Directors of Screen Actors Guild with Valerie and have known her for almost a decade. Someone noted her birth year in print as 1940 years ago and she just took it as a fortunate mistake It's 1939. That's as much "verification" as you're gonna get.MrEguy | ♠♥♣♦02:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ross, there's a current proposal to start up a new WikiProject covering Australian music. See here. I thought you may be interested. Cheers —Moondyne12:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:LuiseRainer.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. Aksibot22:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:JimmyBarnesTwoFiresAlbumcover.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. BetacommandBot16:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
80s singles
Hi Ross
thanks for your feedback. I wanted to give people the opportunity to contact me first before wiping what people had done before. I understand you put the page together originally?
I have contributed a number of pages in this genre, including these:
I got the idea for the layout from looking through what was on offer overseas, and thought the best version was this one, also from Down Under (NZ):
List_of_number-one_singles_in_1981_(NZ)
I like the fact that visually you get the sense of the passage of time in this format and the idea of which songs were number one for a longer time period visually, rather than just a number in a column of figures representing a number of weeks; although I understand your argument, that it may look cumbersome, or take up a bit more space to do it the "NZ way".
I compiled a website on Go-Set charts last year and followed the model you describe there: http://www.poparchives.com.au/gosetcharts/singles.html , although I can't say I'm 100% happy with it, I prefer the layout here on wikipedia.
Another couple of considerations: adding more dates would potentially widen the columns, leaving less room for the display of the images on the right hand side, especially in older browsers/with lower screen resolutions (which would scrunch everything up more).
At the Dec/Jan period of each year, there is no need to add: "2 weeks this year and 5 weeks the following year", as it's clear from the table what is going on, as it now stands. This also applies when a song was number one for a few weeks, then something else comes along, then the old one returns to the top again... (eg. Flashdance / Australiana in 1983) it makes it easier to understand this when it's in the "NZ" visual format.
I'd really like to leave it as it is please, if you don't mind, as it would mean a lot of work going back through all the pages above and standardising it. Can you live with that ... please?
I did not touch the ARIA singles Jun 88+ and left them in the format you composed it in, to distinguish it from the Kent charts.
I don't propose to do the 1990s, as I don't have the ARIA charts or a full set of Kent Music Report charts for the period. I don't propose touching the 2000s material either, which is also ARIA.
Will leave it for someone else to fill in the missing 90s albums, it's also not my era of music... I do have singles data from the 1940s & 50s, though.... maybe someday in the future, although that s not my era of music either!
As far as quotes and itals are concerned, that is much easier to fix, as it would be just a matter of find & replace. I noted the NZ site has both itals & quotes. I thought the quotes looked a bit clunky, which is why I decided on itals, not knowing what any standards were.
I've made / am making certain that the images used are also on other wikipedia pages as well, so that they shouldn't be removed. I also got the correct "fair usage" wording from wikipedia staff and went through and included it on every single page for each image that i uploaded. So its been a lot of work already, the whole thing!
I'll leave it as is for a week or so in case anyone else wishes to comment. Thanks again for your compliments,
regards Barry in Sydney
Rusty20118:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The May 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated notice by BrownBot22:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free use disputed for Image:Freaks.jpg
This file may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading Image:Freaks.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.
Thanks for uploading Image:CelineDionThinkTwice.ogg. 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. BetacommandBot21:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image (Image:TheThinManDVD.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:TheThinManDVD.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. BetacommandBot06:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free use disputed for Image:DollyPartonTheRiverUnbrokensingle.jpg
This file may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading Image:DollyPartonTheRiverUnbrokensingle.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
