User talk:H2g2bob/Archive 2

Convolution

Hi H2g2,

I believe moving the simple practical solution to the "talk section" decision was made based on some very vague argument.

1) If you look at the material presented by the author and at what I wrote in the article they clearly differ. It is as if I put up MY notes from Dr. Mattuck's lecture. I am not sure who has the copyright on these notes... Are you giving credit to all the profesors' material you've been taught in all the courses you've taken? If you do ... congratulations! 2) I recall that mathematical formulae can not be "copyrighted"... 3) I believe the true spirit of MIT OCW is to disseminate knowledge and this is also what I believe Wikipedia stands for. I am pretty sure that Dr. Mattuck had similar intentions when he agreed on recording his course. There will definitely be PROBLEMS in disseminating the knoweledge but let's not fix what ain't broke. I gave credit where it was due...

With 1, 2 and 3 in mind your decision to move the simple application section to "disscussion" appears to me to be to say the least on very unstable grounds.

Thank you for working so hard... please reconsider.

Regards, M —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitrut (talk • contribs)

Facebook

I just wanted to let you know that when you restored this version of the article there was a lot of nonsense vandalism included. I think I've gotten rid of it all now. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 21:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re Archimedes Plutonium

I can't restore it, it's been deleted under the auspices of WP:BLP which is non-negotiable to enough people to make it stick. My hands are tied. You could ask either or both of the original deleters, User:JzG and User:AlisonW to undelete it for now, although I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. But you never know. Herostratus 03:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Randi image

Hello - you removed Image:James Randi crop.jpg from James Randi, but I don't get why. You said in the summary there was "no assertion of ownership on image description page to validate claimed CC license". I was wondering what you meant by this - the image looks legit. Thanks --h2g2bob (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the image description page and saw that "H2g2bob" (i.e., you) uploaded the image, but it is said to be "authored" by Flickr user "ensceptico". There is no stated connection between the two. Furthermore, ensceptico makes no assertion on his/her Flickr pages (that I saw, at least) that s/he owned the uploaded images. (I've often seen claims that someone has "created" an image when all they've done is taken an image they don't own and cropped or otherwise modified it.) I don't mean to cast aspersions on your effort. But given the widespread uploading of unowned images by folks who find the unapproved use of copyrighted material perfectly okay, despite its illegality, it is very important for uploaders to make their ownership of any images explicit if they are asserting a right to release it under CCL or GFDL. If you are the owner, and you are "ensceptico", you should state this clearly in the Wikimedia description page. (Actually, we don't really care if you are "ensceptico". If the Flickr user doesn't claim ownership, that's their problem. Wikipedia is only interested in whether our "H2g2bob" asserts ownership. It would be helpful, however, to say how you came to own this image, in case any questions come up. See my user image's description for how I did this.) This doesn't prevent folks from making false claims, but if we follow this basic requirement, we are at least doing due diligence to prevent copyright violations. Let me know if you have any questions about this, or about editing the description page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

articles about spuriousQ and jinian

it was all true though. it was constructive and how can the truth be damaging?

it was all true though. how can the truth be damaging? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavcole (talk • contribs)

thanks for the advice h2g2bob

intro to Epigenetics

Hi! You tagged the intro to this article as lacking sufficient context. I've changed the intro and have been proposing some alternate leads (see Talk:Epigenetics#intro_definition), I was wondering if you could give me some feedback on which one is more understandable and what parts need clarification? Thanks! Madeleine 17:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much...

...for your welcome message! I have actually been lurking around Wikipedia for awhile now, but just now decided to register an account (so thankfully I am aware of some of the policies!) Anyways, it's really nice of you to take the time to give me a shout, and I'm sorry I didn't reply sooner! Slan-cheh 03:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Brandt (14th Nom)

Thanks for adding the previous AfDs box (and, for that matter, your reformatting of the nom to make it compliant initially...) I almost had it, borrowing the template used in the Stokke nom, but couldn't quite get it to format right (and certainly not going to hit save page in those circumstances.) Odd that it's also hitting the 'briefs' noms (which I saw when I tried, and couldn't figure how to get rid of other than subst: and manual revision... and I wasn't going to try that either without knowing I could fix it.) Anyway, thanks for wielding the mop on that. :) LaughingVulcan 00:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SVG tools deletion

Actually... you do make a good point there... I'll let a few more people respond, then decide whether I should pull it down or not. I'm curious as to what you think should be done, the article does need a lot of work... I'm wondering whether it should be merged with .svg or just seriously cleaned up. You can respond here or on my talk page, though my talk page is easier. Thanks! --HAL2008 03:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent addition of Wiki Clean up tag on the article "The Rocky Horror Picture Show"

After researching through the history of this article it appears that you have placed a "Wiki Clean-up tag" on the article "The Rocky Horror Picture Show". It does not appear that you are a Wiki Administrator, so I ask what qualifies you to place the tag? Why do I ask> It has caused some conflict on the page. I researched the cleanup page and cannot locate it there. This page was recently cleaned up just a couple of months ago. Although the fan base of this movie does over edit the article, at this point it appears that people un-qualified to delete sections without giving a good reason have begun random deletions. If you placed this tag, I ask that you remove it now as the article has been nearly completely re-written. --Amadscientist 07:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message back to me on this subject. I have re-written and edited the plot down as far as I think it can be at this time. (This is since your addition of the clean up tag) I have also been adding citations as quikly as I can. I have been pouring over media for several months, but have decided to add internet sources untill I find print sources. I have re-moved the tag for now. Obviously it will only take time before it is needed again. Thank you for your support of the article. --Amadscientist 07:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I feel rather embarrassed that I though only Wiki admin added those tags. After 6 months of editing you would think I would know more about this stuff. --Amadscientist 07:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solidarity

Hey. Here's a symbol. If you want to show support, put it on your user page or keep it on your talk page; if we get it on enough pages, it might just count for something. Please remove it if you don't want to show it. And if you've got a better picture, be my guest and use it. I'm open to suggestions for viable alternatives to the present spoiler policy - we need those more than criticism of the current one, as justified as it may be. --Kizor 16:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

This user believes that spoiler tags are a valuable service and do not censor information.

Hitzradio

Hi I was adding to the content side of things etc. but seem to have made a mess of the referneces - if it could be restored back to the last version before I touched it that would be great. -- Sammy912uk 13:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support you if you STUB it - I can see a few people kicking up a fuss - BLP would cover it. --Fredrick day 22:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in the "why so positive" section of the discussion pages of Hitz Radio, you said, "It's positive because Wikipedia only allows reliable sources, which doesn't include blogs or forums. While the blogs may be true, anyone can write a blog, so it doesn't prove anything. I included a bit about the blogsphere to prevent this being a complete whitewash - strictly speaking that's original research, which probably shouldn't be included.

The answer is to find reliable sources which cast aspersions on Hitz Radio."

Well new information has come to light from reliable 3rd party sources which are verifiable. This information looks at the confusion over Ryan's dob. In the original article, that was pulled and archived, it was claimed by some that his age was 17 because his dob was March 1990. This dob has now been verified as seen on the Companies House Certificate of Incorporation document. Since this area of comment and dispute is verified by reliable neutral sources, I hope that you will look at it and support that area of editorial.

I have also commented on the discussion page as to why several things need to be verified. I've tried to make it sensible and as plain as possible for someone not connected with radio/media, like yourself, to understand.

I will try and make the best possible comparison I can to your position within the field of science & physics. Imagine that an A-level or undergraduate Physics student claims to have found the 'God particle' and claims to know how it makes everything operate within the universe and 'ties' everything together. These claims are published in New Scientist and perhaps other journals, without any real checks. The publication of these claims undermine other recently published articles from other people within the field and also undermine ongoing research by others. Maybe this is not the most appropriate analogy, but the best I can think off.

Despite the 'bitchy' perception of the media in general, it is not uncommon for social scientists, scientists and physicists to argue theories and research findings. This is what may be happening here.

Again I respect that you are looking to uphold the ethics and rules of Wikipedia, but will now uphold and maybe support the section that now contains this new information.81.97.107.123 13:07 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Mrtobacco

Hi there, I noticed you blanked a page on which I was attempting to settle a grievance I had with user Mrtobacco. I am new to wikipedia and slowly learning its processes, but if you could point me in the right direction, I would appreciate it. Mrtobacco has been deliberately editing contributions dealing with rolling tobacco to add an advertising slant towards HBI. I also believe he is the same user: Stredler that has harassed me on my own talk page here on wikipedia. He is an HBI shill, I am almost certain. You can see that his very first contributions were to add the HBI International page to Wikipedia, as well as other pages for their products (RAW, Juicy Jay), while also slandering competing brands. What action should I take in this situation? Onyx86 05:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page was blanked because you wrote a personal attack. You are making these false accusations above and then really writing sort of insane comments on my and other pages. Please calm down and stop your attacks. I do not work for HBI as I explained. I do not work for RJ anymore and I can therefore write about Camel to my hearts content within Wiki guidelines, which I do follow. Please stop slandering me, stop vandalising pages and stop your over-the-top mannerism. Wiki is a place to share information and not for you to settle grievances. You should not have any grevience with me? I'm just a writer! --Mrtobacco 17:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entrepreneur Dispute

The disputes with Hitz Radio UK are that he's been taking advantage of the media and is commiting fraud, claiming he's rich and selling advertisements with this reputation, even though he hasn't got these listeners. I'm sure you'll understand our frustration when people start writing good things about him on Wikipedia. I'd do a bit of research on the dispute links provided on that page, which have been written by media companies.

The article being a good writeup is simply encouraging his fraud.

As you will see in the forums, we all sussed out that he's not rich. 172.188.63.120 13:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question for you..

Do you mind if I put the developments text back on this main page? I don't know if you understand what it's about but that manufacturer makes lots of other brands (not just Bambu) so I wanted it on the main page for smokers to read about it and learn the facts. I know you might have seen some resistance but that's mostly from the HBI guys and other smoking-related parties who don't want the information out there (for obvious reasons).

Do you mind if I put it back where it was or at least reference it on the main Rolling papers page?--Mrtobacco 15:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, here's that info you asked for (it's on my user page from someone else's question):

http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/142583/0/papel/fumar/cancer/

http://www.labolsa.com/foro/mensajes/1153319935/

http://www.finanzas.com/id.9093995/noticias/noticia.htm

http://www.lacoctelera.com/yaestaellistoquetodolosabe/posts

http://www.pnsd.msc.es/Categoria2/noticias/A2006/jul2006.htm

http://www.forosdebolsa.com/intereconomia.php/viewtopic.php?t=87037

And there is a lot more out there too. I think the problem is "Esparto" which causes like "Esparto gas" which is possibly filled with toxins. I've never heard of anyone using Esparto in their paper before. Usually it's flax, hemp, rice, and pulp. Here is something from 1996 in Spain that says Esparto causes problems; http://www.amat.es/convenio/circulares/2003/DICIEMBRE/CIRCULAR%20N%C2%BA%20114-03/Circular%20n%C2%BA%20114-03.pdf

According to the articles they were actually sentanced to up to 4 years in Jail but have appealed it. I have not seen nor heard anything regarding the status of the appeal. I think they are trying to keep it all hush hush now perhaps. I've emailed them a few times asking for info with no reply. I tried asking their US Dist for info but they haven't given me squat.--Mrtobacco 18:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:FSM Pirates.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki research

Hi h2g2bob. Thanks for your survey and your links to tools for tracking contributions. --Sutton4019 12:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links

I have tried sending you an email disputing your claim that external links I added violated Wikipedia guidelines. I have not seen a response. I include the message text below in case for some reason you are not reading email currently. I believe the links I added are appropriate and mee thte criteria (as described in my email) every bit as much as other links cited. The pages linked to provide value for members of the theatre community who would be researching shows they plan to audition for or produce. I wish to discuss this with you further if you disagree, and resolve this between us (per Wikipedia guidelines on resolving disputes) rather than having to involve others in resolving this dispute. I would add that if these links are not allowed, then other links of equivalent types shouldn't either, and frankly loss of the links of similar value to those I have added would be a disservice to members of the theatre community wanting to research shows they plan to audition for or produce.

I also want to resolve this QUICKLY. If we can;t resolve it between us this morning (EDT), then I will need to involve others this afternoon )EDT).

Ed Hinton

Email sent:

You indicated that links I have added do not comply with the Wikipedia guidelines for external links. I VERY STRONGLY disagree. Wikipedia articles on plays and movies specifically contian links to other sites that have further information or consolidaiton of information on those plays or movies.

Specific examples of sites linked to for more resources n a particular play or movie include:

IMDB (Internet Movie Database) IBDB (Internet Broadway Database) Stage Agent.com (database of musicals

The characteristic the guidelines cite include two key elements that specifically apply to the external links I have added: 1) Sites that provide additional content of value not present in Wikipedia. For example, Stage Agent lists character vocal ranges. ThatTheatreSite.com lists for many shows character descriptions, as well as links to reviews, etc. Specifically, lists of reviews there grow over time, which makes listing many reviews on Wikipedia impractical and contrary to guidelines as the number of external links would be larger than gyidelines suggest.

2) Sites with content that is not practical to list on Wikipedia. The pages being linked to specifically include announcements submitted of auditions for the shows listed. It is not practical for audition announcements to be statically added to Wikipedia and then deleted as they pass. The pages linked to are constantly refreshed to update those pages on new auditions and to remove expired auditions. This cannot be done on wikipedia.

I believe you should remove your objection as the external links added provide value to individuals researching shows they may want to audition for as well as learning more about the show in preparing to produce it, especially by reading reviews and other material that may assist them in putting on a production that will get positive reviews (by avoiding what didn;t work for others and benefiting from what reviewed well.)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edfhinton (talk • contribs)

Jordan Maxwell

I was wondering....is this article section ([1]) a violation of Wikipedia policy? What's your opinion on this? Nat Tang ^{talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me!} 14:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a good look at the references to the section. The only things I can't find in the references is the "FTC press released dated January 16th, 2003" and any reference to "spam", so I'll remove them.The second paragraph is mostly a direct quote from a court document. The section could do with the defendents' point of view, but as they defaulted I guess that's unlikely --h2g2bob (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EndUN Userbox

Hi, you recently participated in the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/EndUN discussion. I have reluctantly submitted the closing statement by User:Tony Sidaway for deletion review. Please consider taking a look at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_1#User:DieWeisseRose.2FUserboxes.2FEndUN. Thanks. --DieWeisseRose 02:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Wiktionary

Thanks for you past work on SE Wikt. I've set a goal of 2,000 words by the end of the month. I hope you'll come back and help us achieve it.--BrettR 17:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD

TfD nomination of Template:Blpdispute

Template:Blpdispute has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Randi Image

I've changed the license on all my pictures on flickr to Attribution CC, thanks for using them. ensceptico @ flickr

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Holygrail structure.png)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Dunlop

Hey, having some trouble taking some references from the disputed claims bit from Hitz Radio to Ryan Dunlop. He has clearly made this article himself. plz help youll see the missing references. 172.189.156.100 23:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhain Davis: Internet meme?

Hi I noticed you a part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet culture. I don't dispute the reasons given for deletion as he hasn't made a senior appearance BUT I believe that he is as an Internet meme in the similar vein as Peter Oakley. This BBC article [2] seems to suggest that he is, saying that his video was EDon YouTube by 3million. I'm 50/50 over it myself but was wondering what you input is.Englishrose 18:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:simple:User:VolkovBot

Hello! Please have a look at wikt:simple:Wiktionary:Simple talk#User:VolkovBot and set a flag if there are no objections. Thank you in advance. Volkov 09:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Futurama nixons head.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Futurama nixons head.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, 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 (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:In_Strict_Confidence_(Exile_Paradise).jpg

Replaceable fair use

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitz Radio Discussion

Time for an archive on the Hitz Radio Discussion? I don't know how to do it, saw that you've done it on your own talk page. Let me know, cheers. Rysin3 14:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers thanks a lot. And I doubt you're going to get people to only talk about the article :-) Only way they can get in touch with Ryan Dunlop. Rysin3 19:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Flyleaf Discography & Shiny Toy Guns Discography

Thank you for clarifying what happened regarding the edits on these artists' pages. I, too, apologize if I came across rude. I can see how the type of vandalism you describe must happen all the time, so from your perspective, I might just as easily have jumped to the same conclusion. Thanks again!

Thank you :)

I was researching Helium.com, attempting to find out of they were a scam site. Yours was the only relevant info I found on them, and it does seem you know what you're talking about.

Also, wow! I am totally impressed with your credentials. If I had a bit more in the IQ dept, I would have been a physics major, but since I am what I am, I am left to write.

Thanks again for the info and good luck in any and all of your future endeavors.

julie wahl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.241.167 (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, and happy to be of help --h2g2bob (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Ah, the {{dablink}} template. I forgot about that one - thanks for creating a more elegant solution to my kludge. --Ckatz^chat _spy 18:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hitz radio unsigned logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Hitz radio unsigned logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, 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 (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy

Kindly reply at my talk page. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 05:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism

I just reverted your last revert. I had removed edits which had deleted relevant and cited sections of the article, and changed the meaning of specific passages. Such changes should be discussed on the talk page first. -- Scjessey 18:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are probably right. It looked like a good faith edit, but the fact that the anonymous user had not made any other contributions at the time probably made me overly sensitive. My main concerns were (a) the removal of valid text, and (b) changing the text to make is seem as if atheists were "believers" (which most are not, of course). The discussion over whether or not atheism is a belief was long and tedious, but hopefully well in the past! -- Scjessey 18:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Futurama nixons head.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Futurama nixons head.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, 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 (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BlankMap-World6.svg

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For thinking of the idea of introducing CSS classes to the map (or, at the least, refining the SVG code enough to make CSS editing easy) making the map way more versatile than it ever has been, and even easier to edit and use. Canuckguy 19:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(also posted on your commons talk page)

Thanks for your help!

Thank you for your help with my attempted edit to the WTZN(FM) page! 74.136.109.83 16:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)InDeBiz1[reply]

Thank you very much!

		The LGBT Barnstar
		Thank you for your help and work on the WP:LGBT Random Picture template. It is very much appreciated! -- ALLSTAR ECHO 04:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tamara Sonn Bio

Thanks for your help so far with the Sonn bio page. I'm sorry if I seem belligerent, but if you look at the history of edits, it becomes apparent that this is an ongoing, frustrating battle with Percipacite, initiated by Dr Sonn and her Colleagues at The College of W&M. When I spoke to Dr. Sonn about this problem, she mentioned that there's a possibility that Percipacite is a disgruntled audience member from a forum she held, and after looking through his other works on Wikipedia, it seems to fit. Every other piece he has worked on has to do with Zimbabwe, with non of it dealing with medieval or contemporary Islamic philosophers. I've already had to revert the site back to your edits. Thanks again, I hope we can get this resolved, he seems persistent. 24.9.122.252 16:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)mastapd[reply]