User talk:Smith2006
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This user may have left Wikipedia. Smith2006 has not edited Wikipediasince 6 April 2021. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
Hi Smith2006! Welcome to wikipedia! It looks like you've already gotten started editing. That's great! It's always good to see a newcomer start contributing early. I have some links you may find helpful:
Don't worry about being perfect—few of us ever are. If you don't have much to do, you can take up a task.
You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (SeeWikipedia:Maintenance or theTask Center for further information.)
Help countersystemic bias by creatingnew articles on important women.
Help improvepopular pages, especiallythose of low quality.
Wikipedians have a policy ofnever biting the newbies, so please don't hesitate to leave me a messageon my talkpage or ask another wikipedian a question. If you need help right away, type{{helpme}} onyour user page and someone should arrive shortly to help you. Have fun editing, andBE BOLD!!!!!--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)14:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Carissime frater in Christo,
You write: "The claims made by you about thevalidity of the Ngo Dinh Thuc consecrations". What claims did I make? I was careful to point out that the Holy See had made no declaration about thevalidity. It only said it said it would treat those involved as in the state they were in before. The Holy See did say that. So what have I done wrong? Oremus pro invicem.Lima20:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have uploaded a few pictures saying you are the creator of them. Were you really at Bishop Thuc's Mass in 1982, and also at that traditionalist ordination listed as 2002? Also, theRoman Catholic Church article is about the Church as a whole. The particular ordination picture looks nice and has a place somewhere (if it's yours to give), but it does not represent very well the face of the Church today. I don't push to have Eastern Catholic pictures there.Gimmetrow14:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I take some offense at your insinuations about my motives.Gimmetrow14:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, Fontgombault is part of the Church. Let me put it this way - would you think it appropriate if I put in a picture of an Eastern full-immersion baptism and confirmation of an infant, and just referred to it as "confirmation"?Gimmetrow15:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then that identifies our difference. I would not find it appropriate to display a picture of Eastern infant confirmation and just refer to it as "confirmation" because I think that would misrepresent the majority Roman Catholic practice in the main RC article. It *would* be appropriate in the specialized confirmation article, where it could be given appropriate context as a custom in particular communities. I'm not sure what you mean by saying "Fontgombault is in the Latin rite Catholic Church" - we're talking about the Roman Catholic Church article.Gimmetrow20:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you put antiques on display, it is only right that they be accompanied by an explanation, as you yourself have now begun to provide. The first explanation with which I accompanied your picture was incomplete: I must improve it. Oh, by the way, "show", not "elevate" is the word in the Tridentine Roman Missal: "Quibus verbis prolatis, statim Hostiam consecratam genuflexus adorat: surgit,ostendit populo, reponit super Corporale ..."Lima04:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please prove those acolythes kneeling int he Bohermeen pictures are priests. They are old acolythes. In 1950s Ireland, I was in my late teens and early twenties and neither then nor before did I ever see anything but young boys of elementary-school age (like the two in the picture) acting as altar servers in parish churches. On the occasion of the bishop's annual or, in some cases, biennial visit to the parish, children who would have left primary school before his next visit were confirmed; that's why the two altar boys are slightly younger than the confirmands. I don't need to prove the men kneeling at the altar rails were priests. If Smith2006 ceases to claim they were part of a normal Sunday congregation, I will cease to state what they were.The bishop is kneeling. Normally Confirmation is conferred at a Mass celebrated by the Bishop. Yes, though still not obligatory, that is normal now, one of the improvements made in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. It was not always so.So why are you constantly reverting my editions? Constantly removing my comments? I can't think why, unless perhaps (if the statement is true) Smith2006's editions and comments are constantly erroneous.Is Roman Catholicism your monopoly? Certainly not, not is it Smith2006's.Kind regards,Smith2006 14:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Warm good wishes to Smith2006.Lima15:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must apologize, not for the first time, to Gimmetrow for not having taken his observations seriously enough. I really am sorry, and have no sufficient excuse. The candles he refers to, and to see which I inexcusably failed to take the trouble to look again at the picture, are certainly the candles that used to be put out for Benediction or for the Quarant'Ore (Forty Hours) devotion.
On the other hand, the girls are not wearing a mantilla. Irish women wore hats to Mass, not mantillas, which they looked on as a Spanish custom and would sometimes bring back from a visit to Spain as a curiosity. (The mantillas that I saw brought back were always black, not white, and, if I remember right, shorter than those on the girls in the picture.) So who are the girls? Members of some sodality, like the Children of Mary? I confess I have nothing concrete to propose. Were they perhaps dressed like that for a Eucharistic Procession to follow the Mass? I no longer hold to my previous hypothesis that it is a Confirmation Mass.
The two candlesticks for seven candles each are indeed yet another indication that this Mass was no ordinary 1950s Mass, and indeed that, even with such a plentiful supply of priests, Catholics in Ireland hardly ever experienced a High Mass. Lima 18:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Smith2006! I've been working on bringing theGregorian chant article, and have some thoughts about the recent edits you made to that page. When you get a chance, would you take a look at thetalk page? I think you may be working with outdated information. Thanks!Peirigill19:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You do not own theHistorical Eastern Germany article. Therefore please refrain from statements such as "Don´t touch my version." (see this edit[1])The rest of the edit description is a personal attack against me. See theWP:NPA (No personal attacks) Wikipedia policy. For your information I'm not a Polish (or any other) nationalist. I'm just a proud Pomeranian who believes the heritage of both Polish and German people should be remebered in all the lands that changed hands between the two nations in their intertwined history. Your edit record shows a strong bias for making NPOV (seeWP:NPOV) and inflamatory statements on many issues related to German history. You also tend to add unsourced material whenever you think it can further your opinions (seeWikipedia:Citing sources).Please remember Wikipedia is for readers of any political views from all nations. Therefore we should try to present objective and unbiased facts and where a controversy exists, try to present the views of both sides in a non-inflamatory way. This is most of all an enyclopedia: a source of of objective facts. However in addition to that, I strongly believe it should be a place that heals old wounds, not re-opens them.Tschüss, from aProudPomeranian06:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it seems I have interfered with some of your recent edits includingSzczecin,Gdańsk etc. I only wanted to let you know that I believe in you doing the edits in good faith and that if I reerted anything it was not intended as any POV pushing on my side either. Particularly, it would be interesting to have some more sourced information on what happened to Stettin in 1945, how it got into Polish hands, who gave orders and also about subsequential expulsions of the German inhabitants of the town. Would you have some verifiable sources about this ? --Lysytalk13:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss on the talk page before adding an unexplained NPOV tag to a featured article, removing images, or adding unreferenced text. The Pinchas Lapide figure is already sourced and in the "contemporary" section. As for the other things you wanted to add, you need a source. Please discuss on the talk page before making radical changes to an article.savidan(talk)(e@)22:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please enable you e-mail function?
How about signinghere.
Your move request has been archived from the Requested moves page, because nobody was given the chance to comment on the talk page of the article. If you still want to move the article, please re-submit the request by following the instructions atWikipedia:Requested moves#Steps for requesting a page move. Regards,Kimchi.sg08:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, two things regarding[2]:
Cheers,JYolkowski //talk21:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Luther page. I'd like to comment on your addition. Before the Reformation, there was no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church. This is a term used after the Reformation to refer to those who remained loyal to the Pope rather than joining the Lutheran, Reformed or another Christian tradition. I just thought you'd like to know why I'll likely change it later today. Bob Smith --CTSWyneken(talk)12:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Smith, welcome to the Martin Luther page. Thanks for your participation and interest. You might want to check over Wikipedia's policy on documentation and source citation. You can see there is quite a lot of documentation for assertions and comments made on the Luther page, so when you post a statement, it is appreciated and often required that you provide a source for your comment. Wiki does not permit what it terms "original research" which really means statements that are not sourced. Have fun! If I can be of any assistance, let me know.Ptmccain13:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently trying to get a Dutch military task force started, would you join us? From what I've seen on the Netherlands in World war II article, you could most certainly provide a (more than) worthy contribution.
If you're interested, and I hope you are, please drop a note atthis talk pageCheers,16:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, care to take part in the Germans article, specifically the usage of the term regarding Austrian and Swiss nationals ofGerman ethnicity? I see you have a healthy historical perspective on issues related to Germany. P.S. Good work on reversing the Nazi-Christian cooperation myth. Let's not forget that the church doscouraged its faithful from voting for the Nazis, while entry into the SS had far greater chances of success when one didnt belong to any religious congregation, and had proof thereof.Ulritz15:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your name on a number of Catholic articles, including traditionalists, and wonder if you could take a look at a new article that just popped up,Latin Mass Society of Australia. Reads like a personal essay by a member rather than an article, and it's not well written. Looks like they're more than Latin Tridentine advocates, with also a sedevacantist tinge, and not currently in good standing. Don't know if it's worth cleaning up, or is the organization really not worth noting? --Fan-196703:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you the author of this edit:[3]? (Curiously enough, it does not show up under yourcontributions.) If so, did you see this request:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Please may I have the E-mail of the person who wrote article? --LambiamTalk23:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I noticed you added a dispute tag to the article onExtermination through labour, yet you did not start a dispute at the talk page. I took the liberty of removing the tag.//Halibutt23:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Albert Forster.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice byOrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, seeWikipedia:Media copyright questions.01:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I basically agree with your comments on Danzig and other formerly German places in present-day Poland. I fought the Polish ultra-nationalists long and hard on these issues last year but eventually concluded they weren't amenable to reason. The explanation I've heard from others is that the Poles have internalized 50 years of their own propaganda about the so-called "recovered territories" into a mystical belief that Poland has a sacred right to all the territories east of the Oder-Neisse in perpetuity, and that the Germans were merely "occupying" them for six centuries. (Never mind that if you go back far enough, the Poles weren't there, either. Never mind that at one point the Goths lived in the Vistula Delta. Never mind that the human rights of all the Germans in those territories in '45 were systematically and savagely violated — they were all "Nazis" anyway).
The thing that makes Polish nationalism so intractable is, it's the Poles' personal identity, along with their peculiarly intense brand of Catholicism. The two are, I think, mystically bound up together.
Poles seem to have a kind of eternal-victim complex. ("Poland is not lost forever ...") That may be understandable given the history of Poland in the last three centuries. And one must keep in mind that the Germans were indeed arrogant, brutal and savage in their occupation of Poland during WWII. But it's time for the Poles to grow up and become a normal nation in a normal Europe -- as I think the Germans largely have. In Germany, people who stridently declare that Gdańsk, for example, will always and forever be "Danzig" are a small minority on the lunatic fringe of society. In Poland their counterparts in nationalism seem to be a mainstream majority.
Before I go, let me say that I'm not anti-Polish. I lived in Poland for about half a year and liked many Polish people I met. BTW, I also spent some time in Nederland, many years ago.
Tot ziens!
Sca12:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sca13:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sca14:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sca15:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ja, I know about you Dutch and aardappels.
Sca16:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sca16:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Smith2006 and Halibutt: Thank you both for your interesting comments.Of course I fully endorse the thought that one may be Jewish and Polish, Jewish and German (as many of the initial Jewish victims of the Nazis thought they were), Jewish and American, etc. What I meant was, I had the impression from what Halibutt said previously that whateverreligious identity he had centered on being Jewish; I certainly did not mean that he was somehow not Polish in an ethnic, cultural or political (nationality) sense.
BTW, and I know this may sound like a cliché, but my best friend, whose last name is Etlinger, is Jewish, though not religiously so. Also, my long-time doctor, whose last name is Schneider, in whom I have confided much of a personal nature, is Jewish.
Mazel tov.
Sca16:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might be interested in my contribution to the Günter Grass discussion page, under the heading "Grass's admission."
Tot ziens.
Sca15:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have serious doubts about the copyright status ofImage:Historical Eastern Germany and so-called Sudetenland.jpg. You claim in the image description that it was created in Nazi times. This is not true. There are post-1945 borders of Poland clearly marked in the image. Therefore it was most certainly created in Federal Republic of Germany and as such is still copyrighted. The fact of republishing it in the Soviet Union does not change the status of the image. I'm marking the image as a copyright infringement and removing it fromHistorical Eastern Germany. These steps are required by a Wikipedia policy:Wikipedia:Image use policy. Please do not take this personally. Tschüss!Friendly Neighbour19:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Hitler_correct_picture.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice byOrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, seeWikipedia:Media copyright questions.10:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Persecution by Stalinists and Communists? Well first of all wrt to Tsarists, (let's take things one at a time) in 1795 following the last partition of Poland Russian Empire gained a lion's share of ethnically Ruthenian land. Immediately there were voiced from the Russian Orthodox Church to force their revertion to Orthodoxy. But Empress Cathrine II overruled the ROC Synod's attempts with a mandate on religious freedom. Only those out of free will that chose to revert did so. Moreover the social structure of those lands remained unchanged. Polish magnates still ruled the countryside. Russian presence was very limited, whilst cities were mostly populated by Jewish/Polish people as well. That continued until 1831 when the Poles launched the November Uprising. Because the Uniate synod supported it, after the Russian Imperial victory, those bishops were purged. As were the authorities of Polish magnates. Eight years later, the Uniate church at the synod of Polotsk terminated the Brest Unia.
Today Belarus remains overwhelmingly an Orthodox country. Austro-Hungary, you might add the massacre of Thalergof, when over a thousand Galician Ruthenians who refused to remain Uniate were slaughtered. Or how about the later second republic of Poland when thousands of Orthdox property in eastern Poland was confiscated and handed to Catholic authorities.
Now then, Soviets, I as someone whose family lived through the USSR times know of what it was like from the inside, and yes it was not a honeymoon, but it was not living hell. After the war, the uniate church, agreed to live peacefully with the communists, in return hardly any church property was confiscated, even Nikita Khrushchev during his visit to Western Ukraine, paid a visit to the head of the Uniate church. Yes there was a group in 1940s which called for compleate annexation of the Uniates into Orthodoxy, yes they did manage to convince the Soviet authorities to do so. BUT the ROC actually condemns the Synod of Lvov. Also even though the synod did make all the uniate church Orthodox, the overall structure was unaffected. If you remained a local cleric, you still were a local cleric. The Orthodox canons were also relaxed on those territories, allowing the clergy to shave beards for example or conduct liturgy in Ukrainian rather than Slavonic. Talk about purges and repressions, at times when the Orthodox communities in the USSR numbered just over a thousand, nearly half of those were in western Ukraine. In Lviv only ONE chuch was closed. Finally let I remind you that even though the ROC does condemn the Synod of Lvov, nevertheless for two generations it raised the Uniate clergy in its seminaries and academies.
Now then 1989, Rukh and the new Uniate people declare that all property held by UGCC in 1939 be returned promptly. What happens next? Violance, of extreme measure, when gangs used to break into the churches and beat (sometimes to death) Orthodox priests. Or how the newely elected "democratic" local government turned a blind eye on it. You want to talk about NPOV, then I suggest heavily you first drop all double standards. --Kuban Cossack.svg)
18:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'll watch that article for a while. Thanks for the heads up. --Omicronpersei8 (talk)08:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Kurlandfront.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so thecopyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the{{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under theGFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria atWikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as{{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed atWikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. SeeWikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by followingthis link.Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.Denniss21:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Alfred_Rosenberg_Nazi_Propagandist_Antisemite.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice byOrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, seeWikipedia:Media copyright questions.10:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should understand that german copyright protection is life of author + 70 years. It was 50 years for several years but with the EU copyright directive it was extendend to 70 years. This directive even reinstalled copyright protection if it was gone through further regulations. If you want/need these images use a fair use rationale. --Denniss15:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Russian Orthodox Episcopal Ordination.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used underfair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.
Please go tothe image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.
This is an automated notice byOrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, seeWikipedia:Media copyright questions.21:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 | This file may bedeleted. |
Thanks for uploadingImage:Adolf Hitler 1938 Berghof.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used underfair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.
Please go tothe image description page and edit it to include afair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.Mushroom(Talk)00:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Kdf_Wagen_Hitler_Himmler_Wolfsschanze_Ostpreussen.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice byOrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, seeWikipedia:Media copyright questions.10:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Alois_Hudal.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice byOrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, seeWikipedia:Media copyright questions.06:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Heinz Guderian official.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used underfair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.
Please go tothe image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.
This is an automated notice byOrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, seeWikipedia:Media copyright questions.21:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You were asked to provide citations in support of your sweeping statements about the situation existingtwo hundred years before Gregory the Great. Instead you deleted the requests for verification. This naturally led to deletion of your unsourced statements. Quote sources for them, and then put them back in.Lima14:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Start with any one of your statements. The first statement you were asked to provide a citation for was to the effect that many scholars deem musical scholar Richard Hoppin's analysis incomplete and partly incorrect. Please quote the words with which that judgement is expressed in a reliable source. Otherwise withdraw the statement. Are you implying that Father Adrian Fortescue said it in a 1912 book? Was Hoppin even born then?Lima15:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the talk page forImage:Zeppelin Picture.jpg and the recent edit history for theLZ 129 Hindenburg article, especially including remarks byUser:Frankyboy5. -Wookipedian19:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Pontifical Mass Archbishop.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used underfair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.
Please go tothe image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.
This is an automated notice byOrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, seeWikipedia:Media copyright questions.21:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your correction to theEmmanuel Milingo article. My edit of 19:58, 1 October 2006 changed the photo caption to say he was an archbishop rather than the previous caption which said he was a priest, and my previous edit had said he was a retired archbishop rather than an ex-archbishop. But in the edit summary I left out "not" and reversed the intent of my edit. I understand that Roman Catholic canon law says a sacrament cannot be revomed by excommunication, so if he ordains someone a priest or bishop, the ordination is effective, and all that the penalty of excommunication can do is prevent them from serving a parish or diocese, and similarly excommunicate anyone who receives sacraments from them. The Roman Catholic Pope was excommunicated by the eastern church in 1054, and his successors have gotten along nicely since then, and contrariwise for the eastern church. The Pope in the late 18th century claimed that Anglican bishop ordinations were not valid because some forms were omitted, but the Anglican bishops responded that the Popes predecessors had not usede those forms either, so that would make him not a bishop either.Edison14:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I was interested in your edit[4] adding a NPOV query to the article. I couldn't see any evidence in the article's talk page reflecting this, so I reverted it. Apologies if I have missed something there, but I very strongly feel that any NPOV concerns should be addressed in talk first. Hope you agree. --Guinnog00:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In you recent discussion with an anonymous editor atTalk:Historical Eastern Germany you wrote:At least Germans respect Slavic peoples, e.g. the Sorbians in the Oberlausitz. This respect is not mutual concerning the Nationalist Poles. You probably consider me to be one of the "nationalistic Poles", nevertheless I'd like to try to open your eyes to ethnic minority situations in Poland and Germany. According to 2002 census, there are about 150 thousand Germans in Poland. German minority in Poland has all the minority rights (language, newspapers, schools with 37 thousand students etc.), plus guaranteed seats in Polish parliament. On the other hand, there is over 320 thousand Polish minority in Germany (not including seasonal workers and Polish origin people, which would make it about 2 million). German government does not recognize any rights of Polish ethnic minority in Germany and does everything to assimilate them. As for the Sorbs, you might not know that they have tried to establish their own land of the Federal Republic in Lusatia, but this was suppressed by German government in 1990s. So much for your "mutual respect". --Lysytalk13:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You challenge the 150,000 figure of Germans in Poland. Yet this is the result of recent national census, while your 300,000 figure is just fiction not backed by any facts. You speak of Poles in Germany as "supposed Poles", which is already telling. You say that they hold German passports and therefore do not deserve their minority rights. Do you think that Germans in Poland do not have Polish passports ? As for Sorbs, they did not want a state separate from Germany, as you know Germany is a federal republic. They only wanted to have their state officially recognized within it, yet this was suppressed. Try to compare German policies towards minorities with e.g. Polish and you'll realize who is really backwards here. First, Germany denies official recognition to many minorities. Then even the officially recognized minorities have their minority rights limited and they are being gradually assimilated and Germanized. Have you heard of any guaranteed seats for Polish minority in Bundestag ? Or for any other ethnic minority ? Ask yourself why not. --Lysytalk07:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I'm not aware of any significant discrimination policies against the ethnic minorities in modern Poland. Sure this happened in the past, but today ? You wrote that Germans or Kashubians are being discriminated against. Do you have anything specific in mind, or are these just gossips ? As for Oppeln region (BTW: why don't you use the modern Opole name ?), there is bothOpole County andOpole Voivodeship separate administrative units in Poland, so I'm not sure what do you mean. Poland is not a federal republic as I'm sure you know, so it does not have "Lands" as in Germany but "Voivodeships". Also what do you mean by "census being recognized by European Union" ? Is there any procedure for a census to be recognized that the Polish census failed ? I don't know how German education is being funded in Poland but I expect it is from public funds. Do you know of anything that proofs otherwise ? I agree with you that talking about the "Recovered Territories" today would be crazy, as it was mostly the political concept of the communist regime, but this belongs to the history. I am upset by all this Polish-German pushing and name changing on English wiki. I would prefer very much that instead of trying to prove that "we are better than you", both Poles and Germans would recognize their common heritage as something to be proud of. Especially that there were different waves of German colonization, and not all of them should be perceived as negative by Poles. Unfortunately all the clearer view is eclipsed by Nazism experience and later hatred that was only further developed and supported (without much difficulties of course) by the communist regime. --Lysytalk08:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All right, it seems we do agree on general issues but may disagree on details. We agree that most of the German colonization until 19th century was positive and often invited and promoted by the Poles themselves and was usually beneficial both for the Poles and Germans. We also agree that the later colonization was often aggressive and sometimes even criminal. Particularly the Nazi aggression and policies (too many to mention) resulted in mutual hatred. This was further increased by the expulsions of millions of Germans. Most of the people who were thrown out of their houses and humiliated, would remember this throughout their lifetime and pass this onto their children. This is so obvious that it may seem as the whole expulsions were designed by someone whose purposed was to further increase the enmity between Poles and Germans for the next many years. Obviously the Poles after the war felt frustrated and revengeful and these feelings could be very easily used for any political purposes. Also the border between Poland and Germany was not settled because Germany was so strong and in position to oppose it but only because the Soviets wanted this issue to remain open. This way Poland could be dependent on Soviet protection in the future ("if not for the protection of the Soviet Army in Poland, the ugly Germans would come again and eat you"). I think the Polish behaviour after WW2 could be easily understood and explained (but not justified) by the war trauma.
Now, what we do not agree on is the view on the modern situation. Bilingual government services for Poles in Germany are fiction as far as I know. "Poland refuses to offer anything to Germans" seems weasel talk to me. There are many things that Poland offered, e.g. the investment opportunities for German companies like Siemens A.G. Do you think that German companies invest in Poland because they love Poles so much ? No, they do it because there are offered better conditions. The attempt to use Donald Tusk father's Wehrmacht story against him was certainly tasteless, but we don't know who eventually got points for that. Actually many people voted for Tusk because of this. Also the same person (Jacek Kurski) who tried the trick in Tusk later demanded thatGünter Grass honorary citizenship of Gdańsk is revoked because of his SS past. There was an opinion survey conducted on this and you might be surprised but the vast majority of Poles supported Grass, despite his hiding his SS service, and dismissed Kurski's idea. As for bilingual street names in Wrocław, why would you like to see that ? How about Adolf Hitler Strasse ? You ask who built Breslau. Why don't you think who destroyed it in 1945 and who rebuilt it later. The town was almost completely ruined by Germans and Soviets. I think Hala Ludowa was renamed along with the "Recovered Territories" ideology, but now the old name "Hala Stulecia" is being increasingly used[5]. Anyway, similar renaming is a rather normal practice not only in Poland. Germans changed the names of most of the towns and villages in Masuren to German already in 1930s. Also streets in Polish towns were immediately renamed whenever Germans entered there. Who named Łódź Litzmannstadt ? Or doesKarl Marx Stadt ring a bell ? The same happened in Polish towns after WW2. The names of all the pre-war streets named e.g. after Piłsudski were changed and many streets were named after communist leaders. As for modern Germany policies, I still think that Poland has much more liberal policies towards its ethnic minorities than Germany. How many Polish language school are there in Germany per Polish person ? Compare this to over 300 German lecture language schools in Poland for 150,000 Germans. I know that you believe there are more Germans in Poland, and this is because you probably would like to count Silesians as Germans (while they usually do not feel Germans and did not declare themselves as such). As for Suwałki, I thought that it was claimed by Lithuanians rather than Germany ? A part of my family originates from Wielkopolska and they used to live there under German rule in the partition times. This makes me also able to somehow relate to the claims that there were no Poles in the territories east of Oder-Neisse. As for apologies, this already happened in 1965 whenPolish Catholic bishops asked for German forgiveness. Under communist regime the Catholic Church was the only significant representation of the nation in Poland. This was of course immediately criticised by the regime. You can see the memorial (Image:Wroclaw-KardynalKominek.jpg), with the inscription "We forgive and we ask for forgiveness" in Wrocław. --Lysytalk21:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But Siemens could also have invested in the Czech Republic or Slovakia. And they did not invest in Lublin, but in Gleiwitz/Gliwice.
I would like the pre-1933 names instituted in small font underneath the Polish names. So no AH-Strasse, but Ringstraße or Hauptstraße or Markstraße.
But you admit Breslau was built into the prosperous Medieval City it was by Germans, he?
Litzmannstadt is a Nazi name for Lodz, not the German name.
The German name before 1939 wasLodsch, and that's how it's referred by still. Likewise the Masurian villages and their Rings of Expellees only use the pre-1938 names for their towns, not the Germanized ones 1938-1945. Note that. Of course all inhabitants at that time already were Germans, even those linguistically Slavic considered themselves Germans, which the ballot in 1920 decided for-good.
The Sorbians have schools of their own. But the Poles in the Ruhr-area are often German Silesians of origin, otherwise they would not have been able to immigrate prior to 2004. They held German-passes for the German minority, that's the case, nothing else, even if Poland wants to consider them a Polish avant-garde.
While the Sorbians are a traditional minority, the Poles are not. If I as a Dutchman come to live in Lodz or Bialystok, I will have to learn Polish and send my children to a Polish school. I won't demand a Dutch school. There can be no comparison between the Sorbians and German Silesians and the one side, and that of Polish immigrants (often not even Polish historically) in the Ruhr-area. The Länder of Germany don't offer Turkish schools either. And justly so.
In the provinces part of Germany in 1932, except for a small German-speaking originally Slavic minority in Masuria and a small Polish minority in Upper Silesia (coincidently in theOppeln Bezirk), all of these provinces were 100 % German. I am not speaking about theGerman Empire (1871-1918)! In the Empire you had Kashubians, Polish (many, notably in theProvince of Posen and aroundKatowice), French (Alsace-Lorraine) and a few Lithuanians (Memelland).
And mere forgiveness without regret and without contrition is useless. They would also allow and even accept and demand bilingual street signs in the pre-1937 German provinces (Pomerania, Danzig, Masuria, Silesia, except for Katowice). But they do not. Germans have bilingual street signs in all of the Oberlausitz! Even in towns where virtually no Sorbians live. Please take notice of that. But I am thankful towards the Roman Catholic Bishops of Poland for apologizing. But as we can see: there is no plaque written in German in Breslau, in Ostrow Tomski, where one can easily see all civilians' houses are German-built in modern, mid 20th century German style (sic!), even the church is totally in the style of those in the rest of Germany.
While Breslau was Bohemian, it was already firmly ethnically German in the Middle Ages, at least after 1280. Masuria was only partly Slavic ánd Lutheran. Look, Wloclawek was partly German too, and Bromberg was 90 % too, like was Torún.
At least I am happy you agree with me on the bilingual issue in Opole.
As to schools: Turks don't have Turkish schools or language classes in Germany either, neither in Holland or in the USA. Modern immigrants will have to assimilate, but traditional minorities have rights, cultural rights. That's the way it is. If you don't like that, complain in Brussels. We can't have people educating children in a foreign language as a small minority. You know of course, that 6 million Turks live in Germany presently, or not? Far fewer Poles.
Thanks for your recent additions to theSerge and Beate Klarsfeld page, which I've subsequently edited for English syntax and grammar. One question regarding wording:"...[Beate] suffered from asubstitionary [sic]guilt complex..." As far as I know, this latter term is unknown; does it originate in a foreign language? For now, I've edited out the unfamiliar adjectivesubstitionary. Please check this further as you see fit.--Deborahjay20:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Monsieur sans nom, preuve de lacheté, pourquoi certifié contre Mgr Roux des mensonges... Moi j'étais présent pas vous Mgr Roux est Evêque de Mgr P.M Thuc. Ph. Riu(posted byUser 193.249.237.229 03:03, 10 October 2006)
Interesting additions toFrench Resistance. Do you by any chance have any information about some of the resistance groups? -Skysmith10:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pourquoi ne pas croire, je vous conseille de relire:
à la suite de Saint Paul « nous travaillons avec beaucoup de peines de nos propres mains ; on nous maudit, et nous bénissons ; on nous persécute, et nous le souffrons ; on nous dit des injures, et nous répondons par des prières ; nous sommes regardés comme l’ordure du monde, rejetés de tous. »Et Mgr Roux dit toujours en plus: "Mais HEUREUX car cela est à cause de mon Amour pour Dieu et pour sa plus grande gloire ainsi que de mon Amour pour l’Eglise, ma Mère."Les ingrats et médisants qui oubliant l’aide que nous leur avons apportée nous démontrent que nous sommes dans le vrai.Ceux qui proclament que je n’ai pas été sacré par Feu Mgr THUC je leur dis un grand merci, ils m’aident dans mon élévation vers Dieu, par le chemin de la patience, du pardon et de l’amour.Je prie pour eux, car sans le savoir( j’espère), il font l’œuvre du Diable
Thanks for uploadingImage:Prelate_Father_Lemaitre_University.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 appropriatecopyright 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:
This is an automated notice byOrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, seeWikipedia:Media copyright questions.09:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Hitler Berghof Portrait von Eva Braun gefilmt.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currentlyorphaned, 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.
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 anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.Gay Cdn(talk)(email)(Contr.)19:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear, Mr. Smith2006,I do apologize and I am sorry if my revert action at 15:08, 19 October 2006 ofPrague article caused an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress or is considered to be personally targeted against you. While having good faith I just tried to make the article to be written with more neutral point of view. According toTalk:Prague many users are concerned that you may be giving too much prominence to a view that has indeed certain importance, but should be rather placed in articles such asExpulsion of Germans after World War II. Forgive me but your graphic, scaring and horrific descriptions are not very suitable for articles about general history of certain places. So replacing it by the link to "Expulsion" article should give enough justice to you and your cause. By the way I admire your great work at Wikipedia, especially your edits of history and religion articles. You are surely appreciated for your altruism in bringing deeper knowledge to wide public. Keep your work on and dont be afraid to discuss with us.Cheers! --Bluewind12:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So do I, but:
Please source your criticisms, or stop adding them, as perWP:BLP. This is a blocking offense.Jayjg(talk)21:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at thewelcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made toFrancis Schuckardt, are consideredvandalism. If you continue in this manner you may beblocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.
Thanks for uploadingImage:Hans-Joachim Marseille.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currentlyorphaned, 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 (seeour 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 anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr.)01:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Smith2006, sorry for reverting your contribution in that section. My reasons are:Unsufficient content: Its says not a lot about the history of the christianity in Northwest Africa. It does not show how christianity emerged there, and how the people approached it. Also it didn't say any thing about the contribution of the north africans.
The struggle between the Romans and the berbers was ignored.
I don't believe that the Moroccan christians suffers in morocco for their religion.
What you said about the some berbers converted to christianity during the colonization is doubtful.
If you insist you can re-revert it. Maybe, we will discuss it after some months. I left that section as last one, because i know it is difficult and i wanted to learn more before writing there about. Best regards;Read3r14:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you offer any sources to substantiate your addition atLudwig von Mises?DickClarkMises20:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Padre Pio kissing the sacred ring.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so thecopyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the{{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under theGFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria atWikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as{{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed atWikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. SeeWikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by followingthis link.Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.≈talk23:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Smith2006. I was wondering if you could helphere.Crvst22:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Smith2006. I've noted that your edit summaries (Last warning. This is not a Muslim article. Criticism of Islamic influence is allowed.,Next time I will inform the moderators and Readr3 may await blockation.) are not appropriate for usage inside Wikipedia. Please consider discussing freely at the article talk page and avoid threats. Happy New Year. Cheers -- -23:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Alfred Athanasius Seiwert Fleige Priest Bishop John Paul II.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used underfair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails ourfirst 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:
){kind=link}
{{Replaceable fair use disputed}},without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.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 onthis 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 oncriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.≈talk02:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
| This file may bedeleted. |
Thanks for uploadingImage:Alfred Rosenberg Nazi Propagandist Antisemite.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used underfair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go tothe image description page and edit it to include afair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.≈talk02:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed one of your sentences from the article, plus another one that I felt is marketing. I have started a discussion on thearticle's talk page. We need to discuss before re-inserting. Cheers!Royalbroil T : C14:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Robert Ley2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currentlyorphaned, 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 (seeour 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 anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message fromBJBot13:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:HausserPaulSS.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currentlyorphaned, 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 (seeour 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 anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message fromBJBot13:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Peiper Jochen or Joachim.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currentlyorphaned, 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 (seeour 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 anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message fromBJBot13:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:JochemPeiper.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currentlyorphaned, 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 (seeour 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 anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message fromBJBot13:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beware of personal attacks as you showed here[6]. If you will continue with personal attacks it will lead to your block from editing Wikipedia.≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈10:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:VW Käfer Um 1944 Ostpreußen.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currentlyorphaned, 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 (seeour 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 anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message fromBJBot22:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright has expired; image is over 67 years old and published before 1964 (subjectdied in 1945 Heinrich Hoffmann (Munich), 1932
Sorry to be an a**hole (im not a copyright nazi) but I think this image may be both mislabeled and copyrighted. This image appears on the front cover of Ian Kershaw's Hitler Vol.II Penguin 2000. On the back cover copyright is indicated to be retained by Walter Frentz/Ullstein Bilderdienst. The image is also indicated to be cira 1942-43. I left a note on the Talk Page forHitler asking about its origins and Fair use/'Copyright Expired' defense used for some of the other images.82.29.229.25416:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please seeWikipedia:Images and media for deletion if you are interested in preserving them.
Thank you.82.29.229.25419:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did toImage:Goebbels mit Hitler.jpg. It may be consideredvandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use thesandbox. Thank you. Please stop. If you continue to delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did toImage:Hitler Blondi Berghof.jpg, youwill beblocked. This is yourlast warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did toImage:Hitler ueber Deutschland 1932.jpg, youwill beblocked.82.29.229.11612:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]I reverted the changes you made because it is basically the opposite POV of the one stated there. Removing that POV and inserting your opposite view is not oppropriate. Also, the references that you gave are not good references. Opinion sites that don't offer any citations don't meet verifiability.Atom00:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I've explained several times what the problem with your edits are. I don't appreciate you starting a fight and edit war over the issue when we could just discuss it. I've explained here, and at the article that removing another POV, and putting your own doesn't work. Also, the article already cites a solid reference with the viewpoint given. Trying to suggest that your POV is correct and anothr is not is precisely what is not allowed by the WIkipedia NPOV policy. If you want to talk about it, and how you can include your POV we can do that. In the mean time, I am trying to edit the article, and you are disrupting the article. I am not Catholic, and I could not care less whether either pespective is there personally, I would just like it to follow Wikipedia policiies. The biggest problem with your edit is that you add three pages of comments as part of the reference. The reference should be short and concise and point to citation, and nothing more. It is not a platform for expressing your opinion, it is only a citation. The article itself is where any content should go. That content has to be supported directly by the citation. Your comments are not directly from the citation.
If you could please discuss the issue, rather than disrupting the article, and my efforts to keep it a quality article, I would appreciate it.Atom12:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's discuss on the talk page, cpme to agreement, and then make appropriate edits. The Catholic church, with over a billion membes does not have one view. Age old rivalries between diffrent factions, such as jesuits and benedictines are well known. The article avoids all of this as directly references the catechism. You have added a reference to Persona Humana, which is fine. But, please quote it, rather than offering your own interpretation. As I have asked, please discuss first, and then we can work out eording that expresses your POV within Wikipedia policies.
I am very unhappy that you continue to disrupt the article. I have gone to great lengths to explain to you what needs to change, and been very cooperative in editing to keep your view while presenting it properly per Wikipedia policy. If you want to work this out, you need to discuss it civilly in talk pages. Calling me a vandal because I am following policy properly is not civil, and not acceptable. I am going to change the article again. First I am going to describe, again, what the issues are so that I am doing my part in trying to communicate. I would hope that you could discuss the issue rather than disrupting the article again. Please see the talk page of the article for my explanation of the issues/problems.Atom21:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a recent edit [Here] you comment "Mr Masturbator Atomaton may not like some statements and that Christianity has primacy in our west, but that is irrelevant." First, I consider your comments to be uncivil. Please seeWP:CIV. You have an opportunity to participate in a meangingful way, and you should do so. My apologies if you do not like the ordering of the religions. This has been discussed since before you began having an interest in the article. Your opinion is as valuable as any other on the matter. We asked for other people to participate with an RFC. I am of the opinion that ordering historically, since the article discusses historical views on the topic, makes more sense. Apparently you feel slighted that Christianity came after Judaism. I don't see what popularity of a religion has to do with how religions have historically viewed, or currently view the topic of masturbation. Also, although Christianity may be more predominant in the West, Wikipedia is Internet based. Given that, Christiantiy, with a little over a billion participants in a world with 6.5 Billion people is hardly predominant. It may very well be the most popular of the religions though. But, as I said, I am more interested in that historically many views on the topic developed from preceeding culture. In this case, Judaism and Taoism as well as Islam preceeded Christianity historically. Surely it seems apparent that some of the views of Christianity came from the religion it was derived from, Judaism? As the old testament is a sub-set of the hebrew bible that preceded Christianty by a few thousand years, and both of them, as well as Islam are Abrahamic religions it makes sense to me. Indeed, more information in the article about how those views developed would throughout history would improve the article.Atom12:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Iron Cross Charlemagne Division Officer.jpgImage appears here[7]. Copyright reserved notice appears asAll content Copyright © 2002 - 2004 axis101.com onhomepage.
French_uniform_emblem.jpgImage appears here[8]. Copyright reserved notice appears asAll content Copyright © 2002 - 2004 axis101.com onhomepage.
You applied a FairUse rationale to the first image stating: "Rationale: Illustratory of the role of the Division in Western Pomerania, necessary.Probably not even copyrighted, but still unsure. Definitely not claimed by someone."
Setting aside your claim of FairUse on image 1 for the moment, you claim a PD-self on image 2. Did you actually create it yourself? Please confirm the copyright status of both images promptly.82.29.229.11614:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please seeWikipedia:Images and media for deletion if you are interested in preserving them.
Thank you.82.29.229.116 15:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)82.29.229.11615:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please respond on the talkpage of the article so you can explain the rationale and tags.82.29.229.11616:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your move and placed the article back atNazi Party. Your move was in violation of clear consensus established atTalk:Nazi Party and in violation ofWikipedia:Naming conventions: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." You are welcome to try proposing a new move on the talk page, but I doubt there will be much support for that. In any case, please do not move the page again without consensus. — coelacantalk —05:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop engaging in controversial edits without discussion on the page. Input was solicited on the talk page, but you did not join in the discussion. Please discuss the issues there to prevent edit warring. I reverted Gio's unilateral edits, and I will do the same with yours. Please come to the talk page and build consensus. The suicide claim was removed perWP:OR and strong opposition from all but one commenting editor. The Catholic Church claims had a mixed response, so I formed a compromise edit. If you strongly object to the edit, please discuss it instead trying to force your version of the text. Thank you. Be well!Vassyana09:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hang in there, Smith!almost all of us Catholics are open minded,& nice in debate.
the "dogans" seem to have a lot of tiem on their hands to trash talk...cheers
Opuscalgary23:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Josef Goebbels.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used underfair use but there is noexplanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use aboilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go tothe image description page and edit it to include afair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.Jkelly00:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Hitler Rommel discussion Generals.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currentlyorphaned, 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 (seeour 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 anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Angr13:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I gota very long message on my talk page about your image uploads. There do seem to be some problems. We really need verifiable copyright holder information for any image republished here, and it doesn't look like we have it for these images. Further, the image description page for some of them seems to be suggesting that copyright has expired, which is a quite remarkable claim, given that they were only produced sixty years ago, ten years after their creator would have had to have died for copyright expiration in the United States or in Europe. Also, they seem to lack properWikipedia:Fair use rationales. I'd rather not delete them all without at least having a conversation with you about it, but I'm afraid that we cannot be lax about copyright issues. If you could respond and let me know if you are going to be able to meet the requirements ofWikipedia:Fair use criteria with these images, or if I should begin deleting them, that would be helpful.Jkelly02:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The same counts forImage:Thuc celebrating Pontifical Mass 1982.jpeg andImage:Thuc Carmona Zamora.jpg.Garion96(talk)10:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may beblocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that thethree-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked foredit warring, even if they do not technically violate thethree-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.-Andrew c21:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The duration of theblock is 24 hours.Here are the reverts in question.Nishkid6420:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:AH_Raeder_Kriegsmarine.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice byOrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, seeWikipedia:Media copyright questions.05:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Berlin_Reichskanzlei_Interieur.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice byOrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, seeWikipedia:Media copyright questions.06:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Condor_Legion_Parade.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice byOrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, seeWikipedia:Media copyright questions.07:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Hans-Joachim_Marseille2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice byOrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, seeWikipedia:Media copyright questions.08:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Heinrich_Himmler_Murderer.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice byOrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, seeWikipedia:Media copyright questions.08:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Hitler_Berghof_Portrait_von_Eva_Braun_gefilmt.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currentlyorphaned, 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 (seeour 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 anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr)18:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:John_XXIII_Sedia_Gestatoria.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so thecopyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the{{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under theGFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria atWikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as{{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed atWikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. SeeWikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by followingthis link.Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under anon-free license (perWikipedia:Fair use) thenthe image will be deleted48 hours after 15:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.BigDT15:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Domobran Ustashe Regiment Waffen SS.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used underfair use but there is noexplanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to theboilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go tothe image description page and edit it to include afair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.malo(tlk)(cntrbtns)02:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Smith2006,
IMHO the main claim in your edit[9] in articleJosemaría Escrivá isn't sourced according to our standards (WP:RS,WP:ATT). The first ref is a sort of private site (no impressum) and the second one is a blog. Additionally both seem to be partisan (traditionalist). Though your claim may be true, you need to attribute it to reliable sources. --Túrelio21:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Liberalism is non-propositional and by definition broadminded and frank. A person may come to a conclusion using a liberal methodology, but their conclusion is not Liberal only method they used. Individual conclusion can be questioned as not being broadminded.
Point two this is not an article on modernism in the Catholic Church. Please try and affect the POV of that article (that way some other editor’s can deal with your agenda).--Riferimento16:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been defending this article for sometime against hateful Fundamentalist like yourself and fools who believe they can speak for the entire Church—I will no longer bother. You and fools can try and recreate reality.--Riferimento22:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
| This file may bedeleted. |
Thanks for uploadingImage:Escriva at Mass 1971.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 atWikipedia:Non-free content and then go tothe image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to ourCriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot04:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing toImage:LSAH.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used underfair use but there is noexplanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to theboilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be foundhere.
Please go tothe image description page and edit it to include afair use rationale. Using one of the templates atWikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot23:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed onImage:Oude Roomse Kerk.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under thecriteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meetvery basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Pleasesee the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add{{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:Image:Oude Roomse Kerk.jpg|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteriafor biographies,for web sites,for bands, orfor companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.effeietsanders09:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed onImage:Pontifical Mass Archbishop.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under thecriteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meetvery basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Pleasesee the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add{{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:Image:Pontifical Mass Archbishop.jpg|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteriafor biographies,for web sites,for bands, orfor companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.effeietsanders09:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have taggedImage:Pontifical_Mass_Archbishop.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale onthe image description page. Thank you. || 06:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Archbishop_Marcel_Lefebvre_FairUse.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so thecopyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the{{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under theGFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria atWikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as{{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed atWikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. SeeWikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by followingthis link.Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under anon-free license (perWikipedia:Fair use) thenthe image will be deleted48 hours after 00:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.Abu badali(talk)00:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Oude_Roomse_Kerk.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used underfair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails ourfirst 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:
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![[7]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=http%3a%2f%2faxis101.bizland.com%2fEK2doc2.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=http%3a%2f%2faxis101.bizland.com%2fSSfrenchShield01.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}},without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.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 onthis link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per ourFair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you. || 06:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I noticed that you were uploadthis photo to English Wikipedia. Can you, please, upload that same photo toWikimedia Commons, so all Wikipedias can use that photo. -- User Green Bonsai fromFinnish Wikipedia.
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,Image:Escriva at Mass.jpg, has been listed atWikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see thediscussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.Polarlys 15:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Polarlys15:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC) ==[reply]
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,Image:Escriva at Mass.jpg, has been listed atWikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see thediscussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.Polarlys 15:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Polarlys15:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Das Schwarze Korps Eugenio Pacelli Judenfreund Feind des Nationalsozialismus.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 atWikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go tothe image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates atWikipedia: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.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to ourCriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot05:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Ngo Dinh Thuc Zamora Carmona Rivera Excommunicated Bishops 1981.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 atWikipedia: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 atWikipedia: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.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to ourcriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at themedia copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot02:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Confession picture.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currentlyorphaned, 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 (seeour 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 anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Angr14:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing toImage:Confession picture.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used underfair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go tothe image description page and edit it to include afair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr14:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Endsieg Poster.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 atWikipedia: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 atWikipedia: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.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to ourcriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at themedia copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot05:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Holy Orders Picture.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, it is currentlyorphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour 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 all non-free media not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.BetacommandBot02:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:John XXIII Sedia Gestatoria.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, it is currentlyorphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour 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 all non-free media not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.BetacommandBot02:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Bishop sanborn ordination.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 atWikipedia: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 atWikipedia: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.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to ourcriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at themedia copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot(talk)05:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Holy Orders Picture.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, it is currentlyorphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour 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 all non-free media not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk)20:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Rudolf Heß.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, it is currentlyorphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour 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 all non-free media not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk)20:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Holy Orders Picture.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, it is currentlyorphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour 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 all non-free media not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk)00:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing toImage:Fr Ratzinger Introibo ad altare Dei.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used underfair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go tothe image description page and edit it to include afair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you. —AngrIf you've written a quality article...13:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Mass Rome Church Santa Trinità dei Monti.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 atWikipedia: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 atWikipedia: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.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to ourcriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at themedia copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk)06:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Bisig beim Papst.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 atWikipedia: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 atWikipedia: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.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to ourcriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at themedia copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk)04:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:LSAH.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 atWikipedia: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 atWikipedia: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.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to ourcriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at themedia copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk)17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Old Catholic Priestess.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim offair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails ourfirst non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
_2){kind=link}
){kind=link}
_3){kind=link}
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}},without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject,requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking onthis link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before13 July2006), per ournon-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you. —AngrIf you've written a quality article...18:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing toImage:Old Catholic Priestess.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used underfair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go tothe image description page and edit it to include afair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you. —AngrIf you've written a quality article...18:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:World Exposition 1937 Paris German Pavillon National Socialiste.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 atWikipedia: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 atWikipedia: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.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to ourcriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at themedia copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk)07:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mindWP:V andWP:ATT. When you add new content to articles, please also supply a source so that readers can verify that information. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk]01:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:World Exposition 1937 Paris German Pavillon National Socialiste.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, it is currentlyorphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour 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 all non-free media not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk)01:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Wehrmacht Action Eastern Front.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 atWikipedia: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 atWikipedia: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.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to ourcriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at themedia copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk)03:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Sudetendeutsche kratzau bohemia.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 atWikipedia: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 atWikipedia: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.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to ourcriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at themedia copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk)04:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Mgr. Williamson.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, it is currentlyorphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour 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 all non-free media not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.BJBot (talk)18:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing toImage:Hitlerjugend in Colour.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used underfair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go tothe image description page and edit it to include afair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.Project FMF (talk)00:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove requests for verification or citations without supplying the requested source.--Mike Searson (talk)15:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, its tough. You may want to help out on theRoman Catholic Church article going through FAC right now. It's so large that I'm only able to work on bits and pieces of it at a time, but it needs alot of work. If you have any source material about history, etc, you might want to get on board.--Mike Searson (talk)01:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop reverting without discussing. Your position has no support among editors or outside sources. It is becoming disruptive and if you continue you may be sanctioned. Please seek consensus for verifiable and neutral material. ·:·Will Beback·:·19:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Albert Forster.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia'scriteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go tothe image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them atWikipedia:Media copyright questions.
Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page.STBotI (talk)19:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for uploadingImage:Bisdinn.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required byWikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have anexplanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as animage copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with ourcriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at themedia copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page.STBotI (talk)06:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I do not find Booth's church affiliation or baptism mentioned in the cited reference, Geringer'sJohn Wilkes Booth: A Brutus of His Age. As another editor has said on the article's Talk page, we really need to have a reliable source for the article to state his religious affiliation (if any). Do you have a reliable source to cite for this information? Without one, I've deleted this information pending a reliable source and you're invited to join the discussionhere.JGHowestalk -11:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Smith2006. Could you provide reference for Klose's self-identification as a German? Did he say it in an interview cited? And could you provide references for theBarbara Jesch name? Could you provide reference for his parents being subject to Polonization? BTW I lived in Opole, it is not a bilingual city by no means. I do not want to start an edit war, but unsourced information will be deleted.Tymek (talk)14:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove information from articles. Wikipedia isnot censored, and content is not removed even if some believe it to be contentious. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reachconsensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. You also have the option toconfigure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. ·:·Will Beback·:·10:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war according to the reverts you have made onErwin Rösener. Note that thethree-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate thethree-revert rule. If you continue,you may beblocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains aconsensus among editors. If necessary, pursuedispute resolution.Stifle (talk)11:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smith2006, you may be unaware of this, but when adding tags to articles it is customary to explain at the article's talk page what you see the problem as being. SeeWikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems#Constructive_tagging. I asked you to do this at each of the articles you tagged more than 24 hours ago. It would be much appreciated if you would be kind enough to set out why you feel the tags are appropriate. Many thanks,AlasdairGreen27 (talk)18:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever your personal views, standard pratice within Anglicanism is to refer to all priests and bishops, whether male or female, as such. Priestess and Bishopess are not used.David Underdown (talk)10:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to let you know that I find this image to be completely awe-inspiring, and I hope you upload more images like this from the "family collection". There's something about this image that makes it unique and striking.Mnpeter (talk)06:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Smith I'mUser:Sanfy, firstly thanking you for contribution to theGoan Catholics article and may the joy and peace of Christmas be with you, all through the year.. Wishing u n yr family season of blessing from heaven above. Merry Christmas Smith2006.
I think that this article can be promoted to FA status. But with some more pictures and infobox in beggining of article.---Vojvodaeist17:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Mgr._Williamson.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim offair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails ourfirst non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
){kind=link}
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}},without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject,requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking onthis link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per ournon-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.Calliopejen1 (talk)20:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingFile:Cassock_priest_french_african.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so thecopyright 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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by followingthis link.Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under anon-free license (perWikipedia:Fair use) thenthe image will be deleted48 hours after 14:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.Calliopejen1 (talk)14:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war according to the reverts you have made onRheinwiesenlager. Note that thethree-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate thethree-revert rule. If you continue,you may beblocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains aconsensus among editors. If necessary, pursuedispute resolution.AlasdairGreen27 (talk)14:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read ourguide to appealing blocks first.Ruslik (talk)17:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]Hey Smith2006. While you are welcome to improve the article onNazareth, some of your recent edits have come into question by another user. Apparently, your additions to the article run contrary to the sources used. Your edits could be true and their presence could be worthy, but you must have a source to back them and placed in a citation. If revert wars and this possible vandalism continue, I will be forced to block you for a period of time. I see you have been blocked before for similar reasons, so if imposed, the block could be quite lengthy. Feel free to re-add the text, but make sure there is a source to back it. Cheers and happy editing! --Al Ameer son (talk)03:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't forget to provideedit summaries. Cheers,Kingturtle (talk)13:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please seeWP:POINT. It is a violation to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Considering your past editing ofCharles Coughlin, your edits toLyndon LaRouche appear to be just such an activity. Please note thatWP:BLP applies to Lyndon LaRouche and if you continue to restore the categories without proper sourcing then you are also violating that policy. Will Beback talk 00:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not equate -- nor have I ever equated -- Jewish anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. I happen to be a Jew opposed to Zionism myself.Benjamin Freedman, your anti-communist, anti-Zionist hero, certainly was an antisemite (and a converted Catholic) -- as I pointed out in my edit history comment. Please refrain from posting any more such inanities on my personal talk page, as I will not respond to any more of your straw men. I'd kindly appreciate it if you stuck to editing the Nazi pages in your area of expertise, because your expert POV changing here has sadly gotten all-too-obvious.PasswordUsername (talk)18:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personal opinion sections of newspapers are not historical documents. The personal opinion sections of newspapers are not factual, and only reflects the opinion of that individual. Personal opinions are not even the newspaper sectioned sections. The source you are pushing, and claiming that it is a verifiable source, is not a credible for such a claim. You need third party source. A third party source has nothing to gain or loose with claims (a referee). These are clearly defined underWikipedia:Verifiability. The claim you are pushing is a POV. It is not historical fact. You need to find more than one (lets say three) credible, such as refereed journal, who verified this POV and reached the conclusion that it is factual. You POV is not published in major works regarding Ataturk. As long as you con not establish the factual of your claims, it is pushing false information into Wikipedia. --Rateslines (talk)15:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should be aware that your comments about "Polish nationaists" are extremly uncivil; this is against our policies - please seeWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Smith2006. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk08:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: Under the terms ofWikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking.
Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and loggedhere.PhilKnight (talk)10:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please be very careful as you have been placed under edit restrictions, unlike your opponents. Any admin can block you now without much further ado, and there are admins who have proven to be very willing to apply blocks. And there are users who try to take advantage of this, often succeeding. Yes, that is how Wikipedia "works", at least for now. -- Matthead Discuß 10:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you persist in, and have in fact increased, the level of incivility and personal attacks I am bringing up this matter to theAE board again.radek (talk)18:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pursuant toWikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions, you are hereby topic-banned from all Eastern Europe-related subjects for six months. The ban extends to all Wikipedia pages, including talk and other discussion pages, and especially to the subject of Polish/German identity. For the rationale for this ban, seethis AR report. Sandstein 18:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read ourguide to appealing blocks first. Sandstein 17:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]Because you have gone right back to violating your topic ban after the block expired, you are now blocked for 72 hours. Sandstein 20:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smith2006(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))
Request reason:
As the moderators demand it from me, I will briefly ask for the reason I was blocked, and promise to abide by any topic bans by the moderators. I never assumed bad faith in the moderators, but I have assumed rash judgement by certain Polish contributors in theDr. Johann Dzierzon fromUpper Silesia article.Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi. I kindly request you to unblock me, promising to abide by the decision of the moderators. But I would like the reason for blocking me or the claim of vandalism repeatedly leveled at me..Smith2006 (talk)22:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
I'm sorry, but asking why you were blocked is a very clear indication you don't understand why you were blocked. This is explained very clearly in the section just before this: you are topic banned from all Eastern Europe articles, talk pages, and related areas, particularly those relating to Polish and German identity, for a period of six months. This means that for six months,you are not to edit those areas. You did, therefore are blocked. Assumptions of bad faith may have entered into it (I haven't looked in detail), but the main purpose for the block was violation of the ban terms.Hersfold(t/a/c)00:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide to appealing blocks first, then use the{{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Smith2006(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There exist, apart from certain Polish nationalists' opinions, no reason to block me. I never disrupted articles, I always enhanced them. I touched upon historically controversial topics, but insisting on a more differentiated and less Polish-chauvinist view in an article - even alongside the Polish chauvinist opinions and allegations - is not POV. I never engaged in real edit wars, as the true fact remains, that my edits were reverted by certain Polish chauvinists especially prominent in theJan Dzierzon discussion. They tried to silence me on numerous topics, like the history of Silesia, the history of Germany, the Expulsion of Germans after World War II, and complex historical issues. Censorship and blocking requests by an organized gang of Polish nationalist participants against a solitarily operating Dutch person, do not enhance Wikipedia's quality. Thanks for your attention.
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide to appealing blocks first, then use the{{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Before we consider an unblock, if we do, we need to ask if you understood that you were topic-banned, if you understand that you are still topic-banned, and if you propose to abide by the terms of this ban henceforth. Your unblock request does nor address these questions. --Anthony.bradbury"talk"20:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smith2006(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I also appeal to the topic ban, which I find unreasonable. I am willing to abide by it. It is however a form of conspirative censorship by Polish chauvinist contributors, who desire to silence critical academic voices. I am willing to abide by the terms of this ban, but to force me not to edit all Eastern European topics, is disproportional totally. This entire discussion should not be necessary. I invite all to review my latest edits to see how they were references, proven, and polite. I will abide by the terms of this ban, but I also appeal the topic ban itself. I was not given a fair chance. It is just: block things. This entire discussion is a loss of time which could be better spent.
Decline reason:
WP:NOTTHEM would seem to apply again. You have one more chance to appeal your block in neutral language that shows that you understand the reasons for blocking. After that, your talk page will be locked to prevent further use of this template. ➲redversBuy war bonds10:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide to appealing blocks first, then use the{{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of theGA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see atTalk:Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks.Jezhotwells (talk)15:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Altkatholische Kirche Gablonz Jablonec.jpg is now available onWikimedia Commons asCommons:File:Altkatholische Kirche Gablonz Jablonec.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Altkatholische Kirche Gablonz Jablonec.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk)19:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you interested in participating in "The Bund on Wikipedia" Project? If you are, please visitthe Task Force. For more information, visit bundwiki.weebly.com. Thanks.Eliscoming1234 (talk)17:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingImage:Ordination rifan.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim offair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails ourfirst non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}},without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject,requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking onthis link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per ournon-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.Rettetast (talk)17:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingFile:Hitler Blondi Berghof.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim offair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails ourfirst non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}},without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject,requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking onthis link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per ournon-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.22:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk)21:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,File:German Empire, Wilhelminian.PNG, has been listed atWikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see thediscussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.FASTILY(TALK)03:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, fordeletion. The nominated article isAlfred Seiwert-Fleige. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see alsoWikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments toWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Seiwert-Fleige. Please be sure tosign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove thearticles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by abot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk)01:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingFile:Archbishop Gerardus Gul, Jansenist Old Catholic Bishop of Utrecht.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so thecopyright 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 uploaded by followingthis link.Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia'scriteria for speedy deletion,F4. If the image iscopyrighted andnon-free,the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC) perspeedy deletion criterionF7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.FASTILYsock(TALK)03:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, fordeletion. The nominated article isAlfred Seiwert-Fleige. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see alsoWikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments toWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Seiwert-Fleige (2nd nomination). Please be sure tosign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove thearticles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by abot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk)01:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I have translated the articlePio of Pietrelcina into polish and placed it in Polish Wikipedia as: “Pio z Pietrelciny”. I also placed there your picture: File:Padre Pio during Mass.jpg, but it did not display. I do not know why it happened. I also placed it as Plik:File:Padre Pio during Mass.jpg (file in polish is plik in Wikipedia) but it also did not display. I had to download it from the article Pio of Pietrelcina, from the file window and place it once again on Wikimedia Commons. I wrote all your purposes why you placed your file on Wikipedia. Unfortunately one of the users deleted it from Wikimedia Commons. I am begging you for help me, because this file is very important in this article. Can you tell me why your file did not display in my article? What did I do wrong? Do I need your permission to do this? If yes, can you give it to me? If this is not possible please help me to place this picture once again on Wikimedia Commons.Princess Angel2 (talk)08:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing toFile:Betriebssportgruppe.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used underfair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go tothe file description page and edit it to include afair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.Sfan00 IMG (talk)11:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you toreview other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing atwo-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are notautoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to onlya small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located atSpecial:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obviousvandalism orBLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (seeWikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be foundhere.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.Courcelles (talk)17:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for uploadingFile:Charlemagne Division SOldiers.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required byWikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available fromWikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as animage copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with ourcriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at themedia copyright questions page. Thank you.Sfan00 IMG (talk)10:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As somebody who has taken part in the previous discussions on this topic, you may be interested in the current move discussionhere.Varsovian (talk)17:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I filed an SPI regarding youhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Matthead. Radek
Thanks for uploading or contributing toFile:Freiheit-fuer-Schlesien.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used underfair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go tothe file description page and edit it to include afair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.Sfan00 IMG (talk)19:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I notice you addedImage:Pledge salue.jpg to theBellamy salute page with the caption "Children performing the Bellamy salute to the flag of the United States, Hawaii, March 1941." Yet both the Wikimedia image description and the linked source website provide no information as to when and where the photograph was taken. This suggests you have additional information about this photo not from either of those pages? Could you provide a source, please? Thanks! Cheers,Infrogmation (talk)15:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing toFile:Thuc with journalists.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used underfair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go tothe file description page and edit it to include afair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.J Milburn (talk)15:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for uploadingFile:John XXIII Sedia Gestatoria.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required byWikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available fromWikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as animage copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with ourcriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at themedia copyright questions page. Thank you.J Milburn (talk)15:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingFile:Fellay.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim offair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails ourfirst non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}},without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject,requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking onthis link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per ournon-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.Hammersoft (talk)18:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingFile:Fellay.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currentlyorphaned, 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 (seeour 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.Hammersoft (talk)18:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you foryour contributions toWikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide anedit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken forvandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you.Yopie (talk)23:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Smith2006,
to my understanding, you are the author of the 12:57, 22 August 2007 revision of Girolamo Savonarola.
You write there that "Erasmus, who refused to become a protestant is said to have remained Catholic due to the lecture of Savonarola."
As a History student, I searched and couldn't find an evidence, or citation, for this connection.
Can you please clarify, or direct me to your sources?
Thank you,David
Reisdvd (talk)21:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing toFile:Marine Hitler.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used undernon-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go tothe file description page, and edit it to include anon-free rationale.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make arequest for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.J Milburn (talk)18:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingFile:Bisdinn.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letterhere. If you take this step, add{{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email topermissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria atWikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as{{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed atWikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add arationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. SeeWikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created inyour upload log.Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia'simage use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.Denniss (talk)18:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop yourdisruptive editing. Your edits have beenreverted or removed.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved throughconsensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you beingblocked from editing.Dominus Vobisdu (talk)12:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reported your behaviour[11]--MyMoloboaccount (talk)10:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notice to administrators: In aMarch 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such asWP:AN orWP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on theproper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
Pera complaint at Arbitration Enforcement, under the authority ofWP:DIGWUREN.
You are also banned indefinitely from editing on the subject of Eastern Europe, broadly construed, from both articles and talk pages. If you will respond to this notice and agree to modify your future behavior, both of these sanctions can be discussed or modified.EdJohnston (talk)03:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A file that you uploaded or altered,File:Alois Hudal.jpg, has been listed atWikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on thefile description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry atthe discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.Calliopejen1 (talk)23:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wrocław belonged to the Polish in 10, 11 and 12 century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Gniezno— Precedingunsigned comment added by87.99.45.74 (talk)19:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a courtesy note I informing that I mentionedyour name.M.K. (talk)11:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingFile:Albert Forster.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim offair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails thefirst non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}},without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject,requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking onthis link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per thenon-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.Stefan2 (talk)13:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingFile:Galaretta.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim offair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails thefirst non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}},without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject,requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking onthis link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per thenon-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.VernoWhitney (talk)15:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedMoaz al-Khatib, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageSyrian uprising (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)11:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Smith2006. Please be aware thatyou are still banned from any edits regarding Eastern Europe. If you want this restriction lifted or modified, you need to request it. If I recall correctly, the current restriction was placed due to concerns aboutbattleground editing. Thank you,EdJohnston (talk)18:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingFile:Thuc coat of arms.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, it is currentlyorphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.Hazard-Bot (talk)05:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for uploadingFile:Thuc with journalists.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so thecopyright 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 page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing theimage description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make arequest for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to theimage use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is alist of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.Sfan00 IMG (talk)09:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the currentArbitration Committee election. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipediaarbitration 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome toreview the candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page. For the Election committee,MediaWiki message delivery (talk)13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingFile:Episcopalis consecratio dominicani guerard des lauriers in domo thuc.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)18:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingFile:Fernandorifan1.gif. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim offair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails thefirst non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may haveno free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
){kind=link}
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing<your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject,requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking onthis link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per thenon-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.Whpq (talk)20:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingFile:Escriva at Mass 1971.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.ShakespeareFan00 (talk)09:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingFile:Charlemagne Division SOldiers.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)03:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingFile:Padre Pio kissing the sacred ring.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)21:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingFile:Episcopalis consecratio dominicani guerard des lauriers in domo thuc.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 | Hello! Voting in the2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Thank you for uploadingFile:Padre Pio during Mass.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required byWikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available fromWikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as animage copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance withsection F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at themedia copyright questions page. Thank you.– Finnusertop (talk ⋅contribs)20:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The redirectUltrajectine Communion has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 2 § Ultrajectine Communion until a consensus is reached.Veverve (talk)10:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The redirectUltrajectine Communion has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24 § Ultrajectine Communion until a consensus is reached.Veverve (talk)14:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
