| Revision as of 03:22, 14 February 2006 editFeloniousMonk (talk | contribs)18,409 edits →Moved from Talk:FeloniousMonk: clarify← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:01, 19 May 2019 edit undoFastilyBot (talk | contribs)Bots239,264 edits BOT: Notify user of possible file issue(s) | ||
| (135 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == |
== Image:Sarfati.jpg == | ||
| Thanks for uploading ''']'''. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under ], but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our ] 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: | |||
| # Go to ] and edit it to add <code><nowiki>{{Replaceable fair use disputed}}</nowiki></code>, '''without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template'''. | |||
| You have a shiny new user page, congratulations! I appreciate your discussing the article in detail, and I note your concern over the 3RR and "over-implementation" thereof. If you feel you're being treated unreasonably again, drop me an email (via my user page) and I'll take a look at it, and prevail upon the blocking admin if it seems to me there's a bad call. ] 08:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # On ], 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, ], or by taking a picture of it yourself. | |||
| == Answers in Genesis incorporation information == | |||
| 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 <span class="plainlinks"></span>. 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 ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Replaceable --> ] 07:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hi. I'm responding to the message left at ]. I tried to leave the source on the page, but it looks like that has been removed. It is from the Articles of Incorporation filed with the Kentucky Secretary of State, and I don't believe it is available online. This is all I could find that's online: and . ] 14:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Input requested == | |||
| : I guess another editor thought it didn't need to be there, or perhaps deleted it because it was unsourced? I don't know. Maybe add it with the sources, or go to talk and ask if it shouldn't be there. ] 23:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Your input is requested Thank you. --] 00:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==File source problem with File:Scream.JPG== | |||
| ] | |||
| Thank you for uploading ''']'''. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the ] status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged. | |||
| If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created . '''Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged''' per Misplaced Pages's ], ]. If the image is ] and ], '''the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)''' per ] criterion ]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-no source-notice --> ] <sup>]</sup> 04:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == False accusations == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I have ] to their own archive page for moderator review. I have asked Guettarda to stop trolling my Talk with false accusations and twisting of facts that are unsupported by the review of the diffs for the article, yet he is continuing to do so. Any future posts by him on this talk will be removed without comment. ] 06:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| The section entitled 'This is the evidence of False Accustion' has been moved because my talk is repeated being trolled with continuing accusations after I asked that the editor stop doing same. ] 06:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=691995604 --> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ==Lampchop== | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| "''Do I really look like Lambchop to ewe?''" | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=691995604 --> | |||
| == ] of ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| The file ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
| :I sheepishly came to check out your ewe-ser page. I'm not trying to ram my opinion down your goat. Hopefully we can shear the POV leaving articles that will not be subject to future lamb-poons. ;-) ] ] 09:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote>unused, low-res, no obvious use</blockquote> | |||
| While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
| :: LOL! Well done, mate! ] 01:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
| == Personal attacks == | |||
| <!-- Do not edit headers on my talk page!!--> | |||
| Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> | |||
| In the section ] above you accuse Guettarda of trolling. This is clearly yet one more intentional misrepresentation on your part and hence constitutes a personal attack. A personal attack on one of the community's most trusted admins no less. You need to immediately: 1) Change the wording to remove the personal attack 2) Cease misrepresenting Guettarda's attempts at getting you to settle your moral debt with an apology for your past misrepresentations as "trolling" 3) Stop being disruptive. I'd also advise apologizing to Guettarda. Should you choose to ignore and remove this warning as you have before, I'll personally bring the matter of your behavior before the community and Guettarda's fellow admins for review and consensus. ] 06:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold;">This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the ] of each individual file for details.</span> Thanks, ] (]) 01:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :] describes '''actions''' ("Trolling" is also commonly used to describe the activity) '''not contributor'''. After repeated postings on this talk page by Guettarda that involve false accusations regarding content, and false accusations of dishonesty, lying, etc., the activities of this editor are appropriately called trolling, and as such there is no reason to apologize or retract. I would be happy to discuss this matter 'with the community', as I have been trying to get a reply to my RfM for some time now. I think they would be adverse to the obvious conflict-of-interest that you, FM, have by issuing warnings when not only are you involved in the dispute as an editor, but given that I have already informed you that I have reported your behaviour as unbecoming an administrator. ] 06:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Misrepresenting a person's actions to portray them in a bad light is one of the more common (and transparent) forms of personal attack. Is that your defense for repeatedly violating ]? ] 06:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: 'Misrepresenting a person's actions' (for whatever reason he had) is exactly what I have shown Guettarda has done by posting the diffs that show that he falsely accused me, then misrepresented the issues. I will not apologize for stating ''my opinion'' that dissent for a given intro version was ''implied'' by Guettarda's revision of that version, especially given that Guettarda's subsequent critique of that version showed that my opinion was in no way a mischaracterisation. Nor will I apologize for the rightful defence of pointing out that the accusations that followed were false. I supported the defence with links to the diffs, supplying context sorely lacking in Guettarda's accusation. This situation was further complicated by the continued posting in my talk by Guettarda full of bolded personal attacks. Trolling is exactly what has ensued here by Guettarda, and I will not apologize when the diffs can show deletions I had to make to posts made after I told him to stop. Again, after reporting you for personal attacks, I find your participation here to be a conflict-of-interest, and somewhat amusing in its irony. ] 07:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Reviewing the 3RR provided a reminder of why I find this complaint insincere. While 'he did it first' is never valid, and I'm not using that here, Guettarda's use of 'trolling' when he removed my comment and as clearly defines that usage of 'trolling' is not considered to be a personal attack. FM, unless you wish to maintain consistency and accuse Guettarda of personal attacks as well, I'd suggest dropping this as a nonissue. Use of the term 'trolling' was by both parties, and not a personal attack. ] 03:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Response== | |||
| To continued personal attacks made | |||
| (moved back to my talk where it's not disruptive) | |||
| In response to continued allegations that show to be false or misleading when the context and evidence is shown: | |||
| *(Misleading accusation # 1) ''2 3RR violations resulting in your being blocked twice and an article protection'', | |||
| You filed the second supposed 3RR violation, which I disputed and pointed out was a false allegation. That you found a sympathetic admin is not proof that it was a valid block. | |||
| Who filed the first article protection request which locked editing immediately after a series of edits made by you to move the article to your POV? I see this same pattern emerging with the . | |||
| Either you stick by your claims of consensus OR it is not consensus and edits are allowed as yours have been. You can't have it both ways by moving to your POV, including deletions and major edits, then file all sorts of charges and make all sorts of erroneous accusations to prevent your POV pushing being examined and halted. | |||
| * (False accusation # 1) ''followed by filing a trumped-up supposed 3RR violation against a fellow editor ,'' | |||
| I filed a 3RR on you that clearly said that there was no 4th revert, outlined the caveat (i.e., gaming the system), with a clear n/a after '4th', so that there would be no misunderstandings. | |||
| * (Misleading accusation # 2) ''filing a misleading request for unprotection,'' | |||
| Nothing in that request was misleading or inaccurate. After the page was unprotected, there were major revisions by you that were not discussed in Talk, and when I requested why, after reverting back for the unsupported changes and deletions, you did not respond to that request until nearly an hour after you reported me to be blocked for 3RR (insuring that these allegations would remain unanswered for 24 hours). | |||
| * (False accusation # 2) ''edit warring and violating 3RR for a third time after the page was unprotected,'' | |||
| THAT is a 'a trumped-up supposed 3RR violation against a fellow editor' gives a complete outline of what you called a fourth revert, piece-by-piece showing not a 3RR violation, but like you did ''several'' times yesterday, a complex EDIT to the article. At least I had the good grace to point out when I filed against you for 3RR that the 4th was not applicable and that the spirit of 3RR was broken, not the actual rule (i.e., gaming the system). That you reported me erroneously (a second time) only points to retaliation filing, not any violation. | |||
| * (False/Misleading accusation # 3) ''engaging in personal attacks,'' | |||
| In your opinion. As I pointed out, your behaviour has been unbecoming for an admin, and your claims of 'personal attack', after I reported you for doing that very thing repetatively, should be suspect to anyone who reviews this misleading and false accusation (see next item for further explanation). | |||
| * (False/Misleading accusation # 3 continued) ''and fanning the flames of dispute instead of seeking to resolve them .'' | |||
| ''Non sequitur''. After '''8 postings''' on my talk page by Guetarda : | |||
| 14:43, 11 February 2006 UTC | |||
| 14:52, 11 February 2006 UTC | |||
| 15:00, 11 February 2006 UTC | |||
| 15:55, 11 February 2006 UTC | |||
| 15:57, 11 February 2006 UTC | |||
| 15:57, 11 February 2006 UTC | |||
| 16:07, 11 February 2006 UTC | |||
| 16:08, 11 February 2006 UTC | |||
| I told Guettarda (for a second time) to stop trolling my talk page , after which he posted for a total of 10 in one day: | |||
| 16:16, 11 February 2006 UTC | |||
| 16:19, 11 February 2006 UTC | |||
| I removed those last as I said I would and created an archive to report for admin review. | |||
| You then posted again , where I addressed this accusation fully. As I pointed out there today, shows where Guettarda, after I asking him to come to address a situation in Talk rather than leaving his comments on commentary (i.e., edit summary), deleted my one and only post on his talk page with the comment 'deleted trolling'. Furthermore, see . | |||
| It is not 'fanning the flames of dispute' to indicate that trolling will not be allowed on my talk page, just as Guettarda has reserved the right to do on his. This is yet another example of where you will belittle and report an editor with whom you have a dispute, without applying that standard impartially across the board. If I am guilty of 'personal attack' for removing the 9th and 10th postings ''after two warnings'', then that should be reflected in policy as not being allowed, and the same standard should be applied to Guettarda who would also then be seen as 'fanning the flames of dispute' in a like manner by removal of my one comment aimed at settling a dispute. Also note that the claim of personal attack for my use of 'trolling' is also not applied across the board to Guettarda's use of the same terminology; nor is it addressed that Guettarda used personal attacks (often in bold text) in those 10 edits of my talk page (including 5 accusations of lying and 2 of dishonesty in the first of the 10). | |||
| There is a definite problem here, but these erroneous accusations, false reportings, misleading commentary, and revisionist history you are engaging in won't resolve it. Someone taking the time to really analyze Talk will note that I've made heaps of compromises away from the edits I wanted to make, talked through the disputes with umpteen attempts to come to a compromised consensus, and tried to use humour to diffuse situations that were seemingly getting out of control. However, I will not play doormat and not defend myself against false accusations and personal attacks; nor will I go quietly away like you might wish me to rather than pointing out that policy is being violated in this article. I've agreed with many, many of your MoSed changes, FM, but these continued false accusations are getting far beyond the pale. The primary reason this talk page has been disrupted is because of your continuing false allegations and the need to respond to them with the evidence that they are, in fact, false. ] 20:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Jonathan Sarfati == | |||
| I took a look at the page and the talk. If you're feeling up to it you could head over to a university library and verify the publications list. I suppose there's a chance articles that old might not be indexed online. I doubt an inorganic chemist would appear at Medline. | |||
| There isn't much more I can do. The editors on that page haven't been very receptive to my comments. Even if you think the other editor is vandalizing, it might not look that way to an admin. Stay on the safe side of the 3RR. Misplaced Pages won't grind to a halt tomorrow if a version you disagree with stays up a little while. Best wishes, ] 07:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Thanks Durova. Message on your talk ] 07:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Request for Mediation== | |||
| You recently filed a Request for Mediation; your case has been not been accepted. You can find more information in the rejected case archive, ]. | |||
| :''For the Mediation Committee,'' <font color=#696969>] <sup>] • ]</sup></font>, ''Chairman'', 12:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :<small>(This message delivered by ] (]) on behalf of ].)</small> | |||
| :: Thank you. Email sent ] 13:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR on Jonathan Sarfati == | |||
| You're blocked (again) for ] on Jonathan Sarfati. ] 19:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC). | |||
| ===Regarding the 3RR block=== | |||
| After the ongoing confict with FM, let's just say I'm not surprised. Were you are aware that I reported him for his behaviour and that he's been 'warning' me despite conflict-of-interest? | |||
| '''Accusation''': "Agapetos_angel continued to place Chess above Scientist in all four edits" | |||
| '''Reply''': FeloniousMonk calls the 'consensus version': | |||
| :Contents: | |||
| ::1 Biography | |||
| :::1.1 Writings | |||
| :::1.2 Moral issues | |||
| :::1.3 Chess | |||
| :::1.4 Scientist | |||
| :::1.5 Education | |||
| :::1.6 Honors/Awards/Associations | |||
| NB Chess section is above the Scientist section | |||
| '''Accusation''': "The 4th revert is a complex revert within an edit that attempts to disguise the restoration of User:Agapetos_angel's preferred wording." | |||
| '''Reply''': (Due to complexity, breakdown of each change on the 4th edit, piece-by-piece) | |||
| (1) | |||
| * Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati | |||
| TO | |||
| * Jonathan D. Sarfati, Ph.D. | |||
| ** Response to complaint that version one was not according to style guide and that version two was preferred. | |||
| (2) | |||
| * is a ]/] ] | |||
| TO | |||
| * is a ] author and speaker | |||
| ** Response to complaint 'reads like one long link'; NZ and AUS covered in article, not necessary here (NB I did not use 'research scientist' as the job title usage is still under dispute. I attempted to be as neutral as possible by using 'author and speaker') | |||
| (3) No support needed; this was an addition based on discussion in Talk and iRfC. | |||
| * Sarfati, a ], was the 1987/88 New Zealand national chess champion. He represented New Zealand in three Chess Olympiads. His continued interest in chess includes giving ] exhibits at AiG conferences and at chess clubs in ] and ]. | |||
| (4) | |||
| *Sarfati has had papers published in ]ed ]s ( available on ScienceDirect.com). | |||
| ** In response to FM stating "This phrase will be removed pending supporting cites" | |||
| ** Requested cites provided ; phrase restored with appropriate cite | |||
| (5) No support necessary: GRAMMAR AND MOS EDIT ('also' and closing bracket) | |||
| * For obvious reasons | |||
| (6) | |||
| *His latest book, ''Refuting Compromise'' is a rebuttal of the teachings of Dr. ] | |||
| TO | |||
| * His latest book, ''Refuting Compromise'' is a rebuttal of the ] teachings of Dr. ], who attempts to harmonize the ] with the belief that the earth is billions of years old, a position which Sarfati rejects. | |||
| ** FeloniousMonk calls the 'consensus version' (NB ''second'' wording in 'consensus version'). ''Either'' FM is standing by his claim of 'consensus version', ''or'' he is standing by his edits which '''''negate''''' any claims of consensus. | |||
| (7) No support needed; additional material | |||
| *Sarfati outlined the reason for the exception to this admonishment in the critique's introduction (linebreak, indent) "As some astute signatories to his guestbook have pointed out, John Stear’s “No Answers in Genesis” is short on substance but long on rhetoric against creationists ... Now, unlike Stear’s scurrilous little site, the Answers in Genesis site majors in issues, not personalities. But I can certainly play Stear’s little game of ad hominems ...". | |||
| ** This '''''still remains''''' in current version of article; inserted as valid NPOV context to the previous cites. | |||
| (8) No support needed; Correction | |||
| * The International Chess Federation | |||
| TO | |||
| * Fédération Internationale des Échecs or World Chess Federation | |||
| ** This is a name correction. No reverts, no changes in current version. | |||
| SUMMARY | |||
| The supposed fourth revert was '''''not''''' a complex revert, but rather a complex edit. Therefore, this fails to meet the 3RR. Thank you. ] 02:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===3RR Admin reply=== | |||
| You appear to be basing your analysis on whether the changes were correct and/or justofied, in your view. Ie, content. This isn't about content, its about 3RR. Please read the rules and stick to them ] 10:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC). | |||
| ===Request for additional review=== | |||
| I respectfully disagree that this is not about content. The analysis of the changes was to answer where , "''I can see bits of #4 that could be considered reverts. But can you make them explicit, please?''". I was making 'explicit' that # 4 was not a revert by showing details of content. This was also to answer the assertions that Jim made following your request. | |||
| Review of the content is appropriate to show that the # 4 changes were made according to discussions in Talk (see linked sources), new additions to the article, and reinsertion of phrases removed pending requested citation after cites were given (and the addition of the cite in the article), etc.. A revert is listed in 3RR as ''undoing another editors work''. I did rollback FM's edit where he was making major changes to the article that he then re-reverted and continued to make even after I questioned this in edit summary and talk. He didn't respond in Talk until after he reported me for a 3RR (erroneously as shown), making sure that I couldn't respond to another of his personal attacks, and his response did not address the major changes he had made to the article. A review of the pattern of FM's behaviour points to this 3RR filing being used as another weapon, rather than an honest filing. | |||
| Furthermore, a detailed review of Jim's last assertion that "''... Agapetos_angel continued to place Chess above Scientist in all four edits. This in spite of the large difference in Safarti's prominence as a YEC (working, per AiG, as a scientist) and as a chess player.''" shows it to be '''''completely erroneous'''''. | |||
| Jim used this as a 'proof' that I somehow violated 3RR ('continued to place') by reverting the sections four times. In actuality, I only moved it once (# 4 on the report), and this was not a revert, but rather part of a larger overhaul on the section, as other editors were doing. Please for details and links to diffs that show comparison before and after. | |||
| Therefore, how can something that I did not '''''revert''''' <u>even once</u>, never mind a fourth time, be accepted as proof of a 3RR violation? ] 13:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Subsection order stayed the same ==== | |||
| Version after unprotection (VAU, hereafter): | |||
| <u>Order of subsections this version</u>: | |||
| :*1.1 Writings | |||
| :*1.2 Moral issues | |||
| :*1.3 Chess | |||
| :*1.4 Scientist | |||
| :*1.5 Education | |||
| :*1.6 Honors/Awards/Associations | |||
| Details of (''in italics'') with diffs: | |||
| ''Previous version reverted to'': | |||
| *Subsections match VAU: | |||
| ''1st revert'': | |||
| * Subsections match VAU, and remain the same my revision and my revision | |||
| ''2nd revert'': | |||
| * Subsections match VAU, and remain the same my revision and my revision | |||
| ''3rd revert'': | |||
| * Subsections match VAU, and remain the same my revision and my revision | |||
| ''4th revert: '' | |||
| * '''Only here did the subsection order change''': | |||
| matches the VAU | |||
| is part of a complete overhaul. | |||
| Notice that this revision (as explained in detail in my previous posting) included moving the subsections around '''for the first time since the VAU''', with the exception of what amounted to a typo by FM that he corrected and moved back to VAU. (, , , & which fixed typo and restored back to 'before'.) | |||
| ] 13:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Admin response=== | |||
| :*- | |||
| == Moved from Talk:FeloniousMonk == | |||
| FM, please read KC's warning at the bottom of the page . I have asked her, and another admin, to step in, because according to KC, this is an offence which could get you banned. I'd strongly recommend backing off. ] 03:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You leave us little choice your oft-repeated and misleading denials of not being involved, your continued disruptive participation at the articles in question, and by not providing an email address here. I'm confident that what KC warned of does not apply to someone who has intentionally mislead the entire project as to their identity so as to edit topcis that they are directly involved in a highly pov manner, as you have. I count at least 3 articles that you've been heavily editing inappropriately considering your level of involvement in the topic. The arbcomm has upheld time and again that editors who are intimately involved in an event may tend to edit inappropriately in an attempt to present their particular point of view. This may result in the Misplaced Pages article on the event becoming part of the event. Such persons may be banned from editing with respect to events they are involved with. | |||
| :I warned you 2 weeks ago that as a matter of policy and arbcomm precedent editors who are personally involved in a topic generally should not edit on those topics. You implied time and again that you weren't an involved party and instead accused others of misdeeds. Per ] I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Today I found the evidence you've deleted indicating that you intentionally deceived us. That evidence that you are precluded from editing on these topics by policy and precedent. If you hadn't been so blatantly pov and disruptive you'd likely been able to argue an exception here, but your multiple 3RR vios and NPA vios against Guettarda, taken with the intentional deceit implicit in your hiding your relationship to the topic are all the evidence we need that you cannot participate neutrally on these topics. You need to come clean, apologize to us for the deception and attacks, and step back from these topics. ] 03:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:01, 19 May 2019
Image:Sarfati.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sarfati.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages 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:
- Go to the image description page and edit it to add
{{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template. - 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. Hbdragon88 07:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Input requested
Your input is requested here. Thank you. --profg 00:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
File source problem with File:Scream.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:Scream.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly 04:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of File:Dragon sym.jpg
The file File:Dragon sym.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
