Maria202

Comments made here will be responded to here.

Request for Arbitration

I've filed a request for arbitration regarding the Paulus issue here. If it is accepted by the admins you can present your side of the dispute there. - mixvio 01:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The arbcom is who decides whether or not the case is to be taken. They do take everything into consideration, including whether or not the parties think that arbitration is necessary. But in the end, they are the final arbiters. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

And btw, the chances that the arbcom takes the case are slim. As a general rule, they do not take content disputes. They have made exceptions in the past, but generally, that's the rule. The only thing I can see where they might take it is that this is a long, drawn-out issue. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Creating a subpage

Take a look at Wikipedia:Subpages#How to create User subpages ArglebargleIV 20:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting the IP address at Kelly Clarkson. I've come to realize that he/she is likely new to the project and not aware of the guidelines/policies, etc. Anyway, thanks, you deserve a barn star. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Even minor contributions should be congratulated. Thanks for your help with Kelly Clarkson! :) —E.E.

Belated message

Hi Maria, just wanted you to know that I've watchlisted this article and will be keeping my eye on it. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 04:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Aiken Draft Page

Thank you for straightening out the categories issue on my temp page! ArglebargleIV 16:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Clay Aiken

You've got good eyes and memory -- I'd forgotten about that phrase. Good job catching it! -- ArglebargleIV 02:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I never thought to check the Billboard charts for gold record status, glad you did! Thanks. -- ArglebargleIV 21:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

RE:Clay Aiken Talk Archive

Didn't realize there were still some active discussion. Sorry.--Esprit15d 12:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:ClayAikenSep06.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ClayAikenSep06.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:

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShadowHalo 23:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I Didn't Add It

The statement you removed from the Kelly Clarkson article was not actually added by me. I simple reworded what someone else wrote. Acalamari 22:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

On the Kelly Clarkson article, in your edit summary you said you removed something that was unsourced and POV. I actually edited that sentence you removed to make it sound better. I only posted the message above in case you thought that I added the sentence. Sorry to confuse you, and I hope this clears things up. I agree that the statement you removed needed a source. I should have put an "unsourced tag" on it. Acalamari 00:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That's okay. I just wanted you to know that I didn't add it, just in case you thought I did. Since you didn't think that, and we have sorted the discussion out, then everything is fine. Acalamari 00:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Clay Aiken image

Unfortunately, the image is copyrighted, and the foundation resolution prevents us from using copyrighted images to depict living people. You may be able to send UNICEF Up Close a Flickrmail asking if they'll release it under a free license though. ShadowHalo 21:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale - Clay Aiken CD cover

Maria,

The image of Clay Aiken's cover from the single BOTW/TITN has been tagged with a disputed fair use tag by pd_THOR (talk · contribs).

I uploaded an very small, low resolution version of this in November 2005. In March 2006, another editor uploaded a slightly larger version. Subsequently, in August 2006, you added a detailed fair use rationale.

The dispute is apparently because there needs to be a fair use rationale for each use. The image is currently in:

• Clay Aiken
• Bridge over Troubled Water/This Is the Night

As you added the original fair use rationale and are an active editor to the Clay Aiken article, would you please update the fair use rationale to address pd_THOR's concerns.

Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Since I uploaded the original image, it would be a conflict of interest if I removed the dispute template and added the reviewed template. If you know another admin, you might request a review so that the disputed tag can be removed. Thanks for taking care of it. — ERcheck (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this image is prbably based in its use in the Clay Aiken article. Here's what our guideline says are examples of unacceptable use:

• An image of a Barry Bonds baseball card, to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds. A sports card image is a legitimate fair use if it is used only to illustrate an article (or article section) on the card itself; see the Billy Ripken article.
• An image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if that magazine issue itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then "fair use" may apply.

Elsewhere the guideline states that:

• The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose. [emphasis in original]

and:

• Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary).

By that standard, the image is OK in the article about the album, but not OK in the article about the singer (where it's apparently used for identification without critical commentary). Obviously this would also apply to the other album artwork in the Aiken article. -Will Beback · † · 00:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to ask Pd_THOR what method he's using. I don't see why this particular image caught his attention, but I do see he's been tagging many images for fair use issues. -Will Beback · † · 00:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Bold move to create a new discography article. I think it would be fine in the Clay Aiken article if there was analysis of albums, etc. The Discography section of the main article could be expanded to at least detail, possibly in prose form, the album/singles releases and some information about their chart/sales position. I guess one benefit of a separate discography article — it gives and opportunity to expand the article — perhaps with information about album release parties, reviews, etc. — ERcheck (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Another Clay Aiken image issue

I noted that the image of Clay Aiken performing at the 2003 Billboard awards had been removed as in that it could be replaced by another image. The image was in the "American Idol" section. In that location, it didn't serve to illustrate the article. However, it does illustrate his performance at the awards show. I moved it there, added some text, and removed the tag from the image. However, as the image use policy has become more stringent, the image should have an updated fair use rationale (see WP:FU#Policy); and perhaps additional information about the performance could be added to the article. As you have shown an interest in the Clay Aiken article and its images, perhaps you would be willing to update the fair use rationale to address the 10 criteria. — ERcheck (talk) 05:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the info. Unfortunately, I don't know of any examples. But, I think that if you address the 10 points in the above FU policy link, it should be fine. It is important to follow policy with respect, especially with respect to images and copyrights. If the 10 points listed can be addressed, then good to go with the image. As image use policies are getting stricter, it would be nice if some fans would release the pictures they've taken for use. (I'm sure there are a lot of them out there, as Aiken has a huge, active fan base.) — ERcheck (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The same editor disputes the fair use claim. I've asked him/her to engage in a discussion on the image talk page. I'll let you take the discussion from here. — ERcheck (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. This again points to the value of having candid shots that are released. — ERcheck (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Maria. I wonder whether or not Mr. Aiken's publicity folks would be willing to release some publicity shots from various performances? Thanks for your diligent review. Take care. — ERcheck (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey! About your note on my user page--no worries. Isn't going to happen. This is supposed to be a procedure undertaken only if the closer miscounted, misread, whatever. None of that happened. You can see the responses already. Overwhelmingly in support of the closing/deletion. It's over. The photo--someone posted at a fanboard that it's her photo so I thought I would ask. Would you be willing to talk to her? I'll send you a PM. Thanks. -Jmh123 21:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Elvis has left the building...

Your comment is much appreciated - keep watchin'...! Rikstar 23:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It still is appreciated. I wish more observers like you would voice their objections about what's happening to the Elvis artcle, how everyone's efforts have been continually undermined by one user. Rikstar (talk) 06:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

draft

I recreated the article on your draft page. I thought I might as well get it up there, and maybe that will motivate me. -Jmh123 17:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. Been tied up with pro-pedophile trolling forever, seems like. Today's actions on CA were interesting, eh? Things sure have changed for the better around here. -Jmh123 01:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

About time, indeed. I hadn't seen that. I do think some of that stuff Davodd insisted on can go, period. Like the cat thing--so 2003. His categories aren't much different from what I'd been thinking: I. Personal info, II. American Idol (including guest appearances in later seasons), III. Career (including sections on recording, touring, television--both singing and non-singing appearances--and maybe a section on "pop culture"??), IV. Philosophy, V. Activist career. Ripagate could go with TV personality, WRAL with BAF. The bogus lawsuit isn't that notable, but it would be good to keep the response for the larger picture--not sure where or how, but that's what made me think of a "pop culture" section as one possibility. I think the chronological approach isn't working as well as it did when everything was new. These are just some thoughts--not attached to anything. Your ideas?? I'm really impressed with all you've done--the discography, charts and more! -Jmh123 03:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point about PETA. Have you been following the ArbCom case involving BLP? -Jmh123 03:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Elvis Presley

Hi. I'd like to invite you over to the Elvis article to help us out with the final procedures and edits to make the article 'featured' ready. If you know anyone else that has editing skills or who would like to help out pass the word or let us know. Thanks. --Northmeister 03:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Aiken

You've repeatedly made statements along the lines of: "The questions asked of this person were asked based on tabloid stories and gossip." Is there any evidence of this? Also, you said that, "I've seen many press articles on Aiken where the text has been taken directly from this article." Can you provide links these articles? That information would help the discussion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the problem? The discussion was in relation to the topic. I'd already asked you the questions once on the article talk page. I said that the information was to improve the discussion. If you're ashamed or embarassed by your reonse I'll delete it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I certainly didn't intend to anger you and I apologize for doing so. However moving article-related discussions to article talk pages isn't unusual. Anyway, it's best not to get too emotionally involved in this stuff. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a first for me and a mistake I won't be making again. Maria202 03:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed that link for you--all that was needed is to remove the Wikilink. -Jmh123 22:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom 141

I think I finally figured out all of the formatting to get the Arbcom submittal ready. I just looked at some of the "verifiable, well sourced" but incorrect material 141 put in the Steve Allen and Ed Sullivan Show articles. It's very sad, but I don't even want to get into it in those articles. And I am ready to do this. I will file on Monday, so I will have to time to notify everyone. Thanks for the input. I'll post a link to the Arbcom case on Monday, too. Steve Pastor (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The Arbcom case has been filed. [1] Steve Pastor (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Stub class

Hello! When I assessed A Thousand Different Ways, I saw that it had no personnel section, one of the requirements for Start-Class album articles as listed on WP:ALBUMA. Sorry if there was any inconvenience! --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello Maria202, I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Acalamari 17:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Acalamari 19:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Query on "All is Well"

It seems that "All Is Well" - the title of Clay Aiken's EP, as well as a song on the EP - is also the song title of a number of different songs. (I note that I can find "Is" and "is" in a number of locations, so capitalization doesn't seem to be a good distinctions).

Album/EP:

• Clay Aiken's 2006 EP

Songs:

1. Song 1: Words: Wayne Kirkpatrick, Music: Michael W. Smith; Releases by:
   • Michael W. Smith
   • Clay Aiken
   • Michael Crawford
   • Points of Grace
   • many ohters others
2. Song 2: released by Chicago
3. Song 3: released by Kathy Troccoli
4. And many more.

I think that most appropriate thing to do is to make a "All Is Well" or "All is Well" a main disambiguation page, with the other directing to the dab page. Then you can list the songs/albums. Albums obviously by artist; songs probably by first who released, or by year, or by lyrics/music creator.

Specifically on the current use of All Is Well as a redirect to The Silver Lining (album), this would not be lost on a disamb page if you make sure that you include the Silver Lining album.

As you currently have it, with All is Well as Clay Aiken's EP page, it is a bit inaccurate if the "Is" is capitalized. I think I would make this All Is Well (album).

Your thoughts?

— ERcheck (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

All Is Well redirect

I changed the All Is Well page from a redirect to a disamb page that includes information on the two uses that I know of. Currently I have it redlinked to All Is Well (Clay Aiken) for Clay's EP. Suggested steps for you to take:

1. If you don't like that title for CA's article, go ahead and change it.
2. Next, do a "move" of All is Well to the chosen title (above). That will make All is Well into a redirect, and will also capture all of the edit history in the new title of the CA EP article.
3. Next, as All is Well will now be a redirect, just edit that redirect to go to All Is Well.

Does that work for you? Make sense? — ERcheck (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an immediate fix. To further improve Wikipedia, I think it would be great to expand the disambiguation page to include the various albums and songs. I also think, since it is widely recorded, it would be great to write an article on the Michael W. Smith song (on Clay Aiken's EP) — perhaps first, as this one would be of perhaps wider interest that the "list" of songs and albums by the same name. — ERcheck (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. (Interesting — I didn't know there were films by that name.) Since there are entries with titles that that don't have the upper case I, it might be interesting/worthwhile to separate out the entries that are actually titled "All Is Well" from those that are "All is Well". I think that the films are "is". Alternately/in addition to separate albums, songs, and films. — ERcheck (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sir Robin

“ Me again. I was updating the leadin paragraph for the Clay Aiken aritcle and checked the link for Sir Robin. This character article has been redirected back to the Spamalot article. It's the only character this was done to. See these two links [[2]] and [[3]]. See also [[4]], the Dec. 14th revision date and the Jan. 19th revision date. Could you take a look please and see what's going on? Thanks - Maria202 (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC) ”

Looking at the Sir Robin history [5], note that the page was an article (most recently with a merge suggestion, though no talk page discussion on the Sir Robin page) until 23 February 2008. The merge proposal (to be merged with Monty Python and the Holy Grail) was made on 4 February 2008. The discussion link was directed to that page — which proposed merging three pages to the main article based on not meeting the WP:FICT guideline — "fictional concepts [which includes characters in plays] can be presumed notable if they have received significant real-world coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The WP:FICT guidelines page is a good one to review.

Can you find reliable sources detailing the character (not just those who played the role)? Take a look at the articles on Tim the Enchanter and Black Knight — there are details beyond who played the role and a short description that could be put in a single bullet point.

If you think that the redirect should be undone and the article improved, I suggest you make a comment on the MP talk page. (See WP:BRD). If you revert the redirect, it is good form to discuss it. — ERcheck (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This version [6] was trimmed substantially on (20 January 2008) the basis of an IPeditor calling the removed content fancruft. You might look at the version pre-trimming as a starting point. — ERcheck (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

clay DID art insem Jaymes Foster-Levy so stop taking it out

Pls put the info back in. It is confirmed. David Foster confirmed . . .
http://news.yahoo.com/s/eonline/20080529/en_celeb_eo/091c1140609f_4b0a_86c4_a510c70eaa8c
http://www.tmz.com/2008/05/29/clay-aiken-impregnates-someone
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20203048,00.html
. . that his 50yr old sis Jaymes Foster-Levy is preg by Clay via artificial insemination. Jaymes is due in August. Thx. 70.108.128.109 (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Clay Aiken

Sorry for the rather belated reply, but I'm kind of busy in real life...anyway, concerning your query: there is not enough vandalism to warrant semi-protection; just revert any vandalism you encounter. You might also want to read Wikipedia:Protection policy.

It was nice of you to contact me, but usually requests as yours go to WP:RFPP. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Clay Aiken reference formats

I noticed that, for consistency's sake, you reformatted a reference so that it is not in the {{cite web}} format. Do you mind if, sometime in the next week or so, I change all the references in the article to "cite web"? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Kelly Clarkson

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a large number of concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Kelly Clarkson/GA1. I have delisted the article as it will need a lot of work to bring it to GA status. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Kelly Clarkson

?Hello, I've been trying to shorten the intro to this article a bit. It has relevant info that maybe can be placed in other sections, but i'm getting stumped on where it all may fit best. You've probably seen how the article is highly edited by newcomers and vandals (msotly her fans from her fan sites), so it's hard to keep up with. Any help on the intro would be appreciated alankc (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

i'll have a look at the clay article.. his fans are as nuts as Kelly's. it jsut gets fustrating fixing these things, espcailly when I try not to cite kckellyville as a referance as to not look biased (but i've had to here and there for video referacnes as youtube, fan forums, and social networks look cheesy and often violate wikipedia guidelines) Alankc (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Kelly Clarkson is looking good. I added a fact, but I can't find a referance to use as the source isn't online anymore. under Breakway section,

"In the summer of 2006, Clarkson lent Ford Motor Co. a song titled "Go", written by Clarkson and Rhett Lawrence ("Miss Independent"). The song was used in the company's advertising campaign in 2006, "Bold Moves" and the song, along with it's music video, was made available free at Ford's AddictedtoKelly.com website (website now defunct)."

as you're aware, it's notable being used in ads, in concert, and a music video for it, but how do we referance it when everything online is pretty much gone now? Alankc (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

totally forgot about the wayback machine, great idea. The referances will be done littl eby little, it really is a mess there. i've been busy rollbacking stuff on the all i ever wanted article and discography, people don't know how to tag future singles or add the info correctly, and it's not even a single for another 3 weeks. I wont even get into charts - the never ending battle Alankc (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont mind if you standardize anything, you know how to edit unlike most, and you keep it factual. I think if I see one more statement referanced to a blog or youtube account with leaked media, I'm gonna hurl chunks. (not to mention the 'Kelly said at the concert' statements") Alankc (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources

There are two questions there: can video be a source, and can we link to YouTube. If someone has been interviewed on The Today Show, for example, then that is a reliable source for their views. If they've made some muffled remarks into a cameraphone while walking down the street that is probably less of an acceptable source. Linking to Youtube is usually unacceptable because most of their material doesn't meet Wikipedia copyright issues. However it isn't necessary to link to a source in order to cite it. Does that help? If you give me more info I might be able to give a better answer.   Will Beback  talk  17:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If you like you can use Template:Cite episode, though it's not necessary. If anyone challenges the citation you can tell them about the YouTube copy, but it's probably better not to link to it in the citation unless you think it's an authorized copy. That said, I might add that Wikipedia is not a tour promotion site and if no 3rd party has reported this information do we really need to add it to the encyclopedia? See WP:PROMOTION and WP:FUTURE.   Will Beback  talk  20:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's all over the web and I found a 3rd party source. Maria202 (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a 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 at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   19:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Clay Aiken Photo

Hi there, I'm wondering if you would be interested in updating the photo of Clay on his profile page to the photo found on his website here: http://clayaiken.com/media/photos/2904/47224. It would be great to refresh the image of Clay on his Wikipedia page since the photo that is currently up is from 2005. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsok (talk • contribs) 22:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! I'm wondering if any of these photos would work. Also, can a photo be posted under a public domain or fair use policy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Clay_Aiken_Waukegan_06-12-01.jpg
http://www.krpmag.com/blog/wp-media/2006/05/Clay-Aiken-New-Look.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pinkpollyanna/2082441771/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pinkpollyanna/2082440841/

Thanks!

--Bsok (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Would one of the following images work? I certainly understand the reasons you give in your response but believe there are better options for his page than the photo that is currently up there.

http://www.bergproperties.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/aiken-i.jpg
http://www.superiorpics.com/wenn_album/Clay_Aiken_-_Sued_by_Biographer/clay_aiken_001_080806.jpg

Post-Aiken editing

I was just noting how quiet the once-contentious Aiken article has been. That's inevitable, all things considered. But I hope you'll stick around and continue to contribute to other topics. You're a good editor and your experience would benefit many topics.   Will Beback  talk  10:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of All Is Well (EP) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article All Is Well (EP) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Is Well (EP) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:All Is Well.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:All Is Well.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)