User talk:JonHarder/Archive/3

66.93.251.114

FYI -- see User talk:Chrislk02#unblocking of 66.93.251.114. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like the whole thing exploded again while I was away tending to other obligations. The comment about using their private message board to coordinate the next assault is interesting. Thanks to you and others for pitching in! ✤ JonHarder ^talk 20:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Adminship??

I thought you were already an admin. I think you should be. Can I talk you into it? --A. B. ^(talk) 22:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Actually, both of you are more than qualified and should absolutely run. -- Satori Son 23:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I do enjoy editing and performing housekeeping chores on Wikipedia. The admin tools are the next logical step and would make a number of tasks more efficient, reducing my need to bother someone else to do what needs to be done. I will decline for now because I would like to get an article to FA; it's almost there, but I need to nail down the license information on the images before sending it to FAC. In addition, I am going to be busier than usual over the next several weeks, which makes the timing not optimal. Both of you have been doing much more heavy lifting than I have lately; I would be glad to nominate or co-nominate either of you when you are ready. I truly appreciate your confidence in my abilities. Thanks for your kind words and support! ✤ JonHarder ^talk 20:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

MAC ADDRESS

Hello thank you for your email. The link you refer to (www.nthelp.com/NT6/change_mac_w2k.htm) merely directs users INDIRECTLY to my main SMAC web page (http://www.klcconsulting.net/smac/). I am cleaning things up and removing an extra step by simply linking directly to my nice website which sells quality software. Thank you for the opportunity to let you understand why I made this edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.103.1.250 (talk) 08:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

I see what you are saying. I have retracted my warning from the IP talk page and am going to remove the links and start a discussion on the article page. Since this is your own site, you really need to avoid placing the links directly, but instead suggest changes involving your website on the talk pages. This is consistent with the conflic of interest guideline. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 17:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animated Hero Classics

Jon, thanks for your help during this AfD. I did not find it easy to close this AfD. Your advice to the author allowed him to fix the problems in the article. - Richardcavell 22:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Blockstar

Sorry. In Blockstart terms of service it is written Blockstar grants you a personal, limited, non-transferable and non-exclusive right and license to use the object code of its Software on a single computer; provided that you do not (and do not allow any third party to) copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, reverse assemble or otherwise attempt to discover any source code, sell, assign, sublicense, grant a security interest in or otherwise transfer any right in the Software. You agree not to modify the Software in any manner or form. Hence this is not Free software and also not open source software. Offering some services without fee is not sufficient to be in this list. Audriusa 11:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see what you are saying. I was thinking free as in "no cost". I'm not sure how make the distinction between "no cost" and free software. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 14:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Boneablaze

FYI -- see:

• Special:Contributions/Boneablaze
• User talk:Boneablaze

More LAN gaming center drama brewing? I'm not sure any action is presently required but this may bear watching. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It looks fairly harmless for now. I have a hunch they are getting the message that only constructive edits are tolerated. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 02:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you work in Wikipedia ?

I have one question for you JonHarder... Do you work in Wikipedia ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.135.179.213 (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Is there something I can help you with or explain? ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Mistake on Content Management System page

Hi,

I was running my random Lupin spellchecker and totally didn't realize that this was a vandalized page. Please accept my appology. I will spellcheck a little slower next time. Regards. Wiki Raja 06:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I figured as much. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 01:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

SilverStripe CMS Notability

You asked for a more notible review of SilverStripe. A link to such an article ( http://www.hiveminds.co.uk/node/3236 ) has been added to the SilverStripe page SigurdMagnusson 09:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing this source. I have removed the notability tag. Its coverage is certainly more than trivial. There are a couple of weaknesses: the article is undated and the site's "about" page doesn't leave one with the impression of strong editorial oversight. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 21:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of instant messaging clients

Hi Jon, I reverted your removal of Kadu entry on the Comparison_of_instant_messaging_clients. The fact that it does not have a proper entry on WP is not a sufficient reason for wiping it off (what is effectively) a reference list of notable IM clients. I am not intimately familiar with Kadu (never heard of it actually up until few days ago), but it appears to satisfy basic notability requirements judging by the activity of its support forums. Alex Pankratov 18:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

My preference is to have the notability discussion occur at the article level. If the software in notable, it only needs to be established at one place, the article itself. This keeps list and comparison articles from being cluttered with non-notable entries and makes it more difficult for editors with a conflict of interest from inserting links to their products into list and comparison articles. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 20:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The notability of Kadu was easy to check with a single Google query. The fact that it did not have a WP article was not a sufficient reason for removing it from the list. At the risk of stating the obvious - red intra-WP links is exactly how the editing of many WP articles is bootstrapped. In the end your edit pruned genuinely useful information from WP, this is why I reverted it. It's really not a big deal, just wanted to let you know the reason for the reversal. Alex Pankratov 22:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You may want to unlink all the other references to Kadu in the article. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 22:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point, thanks. Done. Alex Pankratov 03:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

-

[previous message removed] My apologies.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 00:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Systems

Thank you for your contribution to Category:Systems in the past. There is currently a Call for Deletion for this category. If you would like to contribute to the discussion, you would be very welcome. In particular, if you would like to save this category, please add a Keep entry with your "signature" using "~~~~". Please do this soon if possible since the discussion period is very short. Thank you for your interest if you can contribute. Regards, Jonathan Bowen 18:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Myron Augsberger

Do you think Myron Augsberger deserves an article? His notoriety is quite apparent outside Anabaptist circles and i feel he does, but i am admittedly biased in this situation. MennoMan 01:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think an article would be appropriate. As an author of several books and president of Eastern Mennonite for fifteen years, plus independent coverage in a variety of media, he certainly should qualify with respect to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Note the spelling: Augsburger. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 17:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

IM+ deletion

Hello Jon, I am new to Wikipedia, but thought about trying it out with the first article about productive and useful to my mind software, called IM+. The product was presented from a neutral standpoint. Just a brief explanation and some history about how the product was launched. This is what an encyclopedia should be about, right? I just need some guidelines, of where I went wrong, what I did not do right. I have read the guidelines over and over again, but the solution does not seem to be clear. Should I post it as a stub...? Please direct. Thanks in advance. Leanalove 16:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Helen

Shortly before you created the IM+ article, there was a concensus among editors that the topic did not merit inclusion in WIkipedia, as seen in this discussion. The editing patterns on the IM+ -related articles are typical of a conflict of interest, which is strongly discouraged and a factor in its deletion. Once an article is deleted through this process, attempts to recreate an article on the same topic are generally quickly removed without further discussion. That is what happened with your contribution. The deletion review process is the route to reversing the decision. In this case, it would be important to show significant new information has come to light since the deletion.

Creating new articles about software is one of the most challenging ways to start editing Wikipedia because it can be difficult to adequately establish notability (see the proposed software guidelines) and to find the reliable, third-party sources required for independent verification of the material. One thing that might be helpful is to start editing a variety of existing articles, which will give you more experience with how Wikipedia works. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 12:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I will take into account your comments. Leanalove 03:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Leanalove

hello Jon, I have made a lot of changes in the article. Notable info + references. Please let me know if there is anything else wrong with the article? I would appreciate it greatly if the article can finally appear under "IM+" name and not Talk:IM+ or simply Leanalove. Please advise. Leanalove 17:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The most significant problem I can see is the lack of reliable third party sources — all of your references depend on the product site itself. It also has the same weakness that most of the other CMS software articles have: the comprehensive lists of features and platforms more at home on marketing literature than in an encyclopedia article. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 00:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, this is me again.:-) I hope we can get this page worked out. You are right about the reliable sources...are forums, feedbacks, awards, press releases consdiered reliable sources? Anyway, in the meantime, I have taken off the info about platforms and features support. Please let me know if it is OK, like it is. The article is at User Talk:Leanalove. Looking forward to your feedback... Leanalove 11:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Forums and feedback would not be considered a reliable source; awards probably; press releases not, because they are not from an independent third party. You should include some statement about what makes this software unique or notable. Many editors (I am one) feel that not all software needs to have an article on Wikipedia unless an editor can demonstrate that it is somehow a significant work. I would like to see along those lines, with an independent source to back it up. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 18:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I have adhered to your suggestions and edited the article. Please check it out on User Talk: Leanalove Leanalove 10:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The assertions of notability and references for awards received are a significant improvement. The Handango reference doesn't seem to mention the "Best Application for Life 2006", or am I missing something? It would be good to document that also. The next step is to see if this new material is sufficient to form a concensus among other editors for the article's undeletion. I do not have experience with the process, but it looks like number three at WP:DRV#Purpose applies: Deletion Review also is to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article. You will need to follow the steps under Steps to list a new deletion review that appear a little farther down on that page to start the deletion review discussion. Make sure to emphasize that the new material includes awards won and the verifying references. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 02:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User Talk: Leanalove. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Leanalove 09:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC) The article that was previously deleted was under IM+ title

Hello Jon, it is me again. Should I just give up...((( What's the point of having Wikipedia, if any one of the editors can delete an article and close down any discussion about it before anyone else has a chance to vote. User Talk: Guy simply did that. And now I want him to clear up the case and he doesn't reply. Please provide the direction to go. Leanalove 10:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I was out of town when you posted your deletion review. I was not aware that reviews are routinely turned down when the editor making the request has only edited one article or narrow range of articles. Perhaps this pattern of editing is associated with conflict of interest and the bar is set high for reinstating an article which has been deleted multiple times and then protected from creation. I can think of three suggestions for how to proceed. The first is easy: ask at the village pump if this is standard procedure and for any advice on how to go forward. The second will take more effort and still may not have the desired result: start editing more generally on Wikipedia and gain experience. After several months and edits to hundreds of articles, revaluate what you would like to see concerning this article. A third option that occurs to me is, if a product is notable, then the company producing it must also be notable. If you can meet the WP:CORP notability guidelines for companies, then an article on Shape Services can be created and its most noteworthy products listed. There is no substitute for experience, though. By editing a variety of articles and paying attention to the WP:AfD discussions every day, you will learn what pitfalls to avoid when creating an article about a company or software product. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 13:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Professional Information Security Association [1]

Hi Jon, I've relatively new to Wikipedia as well. We are a genuine group here in HK started since 2001 working towards information security (and still is!!). I wonder what is your advice to get linked to a computer security organization category and to have our own Wikipedia page? thanks in advance and regards, Mailcpathetsang 18:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What you are describing is a typical case of conflict of interest and the guideline recommends that it is best for everyone all around for you to wait for a neutral, indpendent editor to create the article. If your organization is notable, it will be created without any action on your part; if it is not notable, it does not merit a Wikipedia article and you should seek other ways to promote it. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 12:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio re:Igal Roodenko?

I noticed you mentioned copyrighted text to Woodbill re: the new Igal Roodenko page (which I actually wrote). Is the quote in the article the problem? Aren't direct quotes ok to copy?

-Danspalding 00:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[2]

Igal Roodenko

The previous version of that article was deleted because it was a direct copy of the text at http://www.swarthmore.edu/Library/peace/DG151-175/dg161irood.htm — your new article looks fine in that respect. You may want to use the Swarthmore link as a reference and a source of additional material. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 12:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'll certainly use the link you mentioned, and add it to the page. -Danspalding 23:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Newton Kansas

I'm sorry for what I did to Newton, Kansas. I was just messing with a friend of mine, I'm sure you get that all the time and I'm sure it gets really annoying. I won't be doing it again. Kansasjhawk044 07:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)kansasjhawk044

Thanks for the apology. It looks like you have yet to make a positive contribution to the Wikipedia project. Why not grab a book from the library and use it as source for adding reliable information — one for each of the unhepful edits you have made in the past? ✤ JonHarder ^talk 17:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Joseph stewart 19:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC) How best to do citations

Jon:

You were kind enough to edit a post I made in which I was trying to address a lack of recent references. I didn't do it correctly. Below is what I would like to do - mind editing it in the manner in which it should be done and then I can do it that way moving forward?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vignette_%28software%29

In March 2004, Vignette acquired TOWER Technology Pty Limited, a leading provider of enterprise document and records management solutions. (insert footnote here to reference below or link to reference)

The reference is: Vignette Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2004. SEC (2005-03-14). Retrieved on 2007-01-14. http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/fetchFilingFrameset.aspx?dcn=0001193125-05-050880&Type=HTML

Thanks,

Joseph Stewart Joseph stewart 19:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

All you need to do is inclose the reference in <ref>…</ref> and it will automatically appear in the "Notes" section. You can then delete the whole "References" section of that article because there is no need to have it appear there also. The reference appears like this in the article:

{{cite web|url=http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/fetchFilingFrameset.aspx?dcn=0001193125-05-050880&Type=HTML |title=Vignette Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2004 |publisher=SEC |date=2005-03-14 |accessdate=2007-01-14}}

so cut and paste that whole thing to preserve the format. See the cite web template to learn more about formating web citations and citation templates for other types if citation ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Deletion review for IM+

An editor has asked for a deletion review of IM+. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Leanalove 09:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Leanalove

Xputer

The article Xputer and associated articles Auto-sequencing memory and Generic Address Generator have been nominated for deletion. There seem to be references, but all from a single group. I can't judge importance of this, you've worked on it, so could you have a look and either remove the tags altogether or send to AfD or whatever seems suitable.DGG 21:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Re deletion of iCM Freedom

List of Content Management Systems

If you look at all of the associated links on this page they all go to some form of advertising. Either delete the page or allow the freedom entry which has been written in context with the rest of the page. Am just confused about the overall standard and use of this page in general that is all. It actively promotes many companies and gives pricepoints.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborahaustin (talk • contribs) 16:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the software guideline to get an idea of the information needed to establish notability for software. Important things to keep in mind are maintaining a neutral point of view, avoiding conflict of interest, providing third party sources and asserting notability. Writing an article about software is one of the most difficult ways to start editing Wikipedia. You might want to get in several hundred edits on existing articles to get a good feel of what is considered encyclopedic and what isn't. As you have discovered, the articles related to CMS software have a lot to be desired. Many were writting before the standards of what makes an acceptable entry were formed; they will all eventually either be improved or deleted. If iCM Freedom is truly notable, you need take no further action: eventually someone will write a neutral article on the topic. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 22:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Dragonfly CMS

Hello Jon, Dragonfly CMS shouldn't be a copyright violation but thanks for your concern. I've reverted the article back to my last edit. As you can see by the website:

All content of this website is copyrighted by the Creative Commons NC-SA

stephen 01:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the material again. The non-commercial clause of your license is incompatible with the GNU Free Documentation License required by Wikipedia. The license on your website will need to be changed to GFDL before it is acceptable. Copyright problems aside, the material from the dragonfly site is not encyclopedic in nature and needs considerable rework to convert it from its promotional nature to neutral, reliable and informative prose. You will also want to look at the conflict of interest guideline, which indicates that one should avoid editing articles on products with which you have a strong connection. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 12:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Jon, no problem, just delete the article. Forget it was even created. Theres no point in having such a useless article up. stephen 15:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm working with a Dragonfly team member to get this licensed correctly so the content may be reincluded. I'm not that involved with Dragonfly anymore to be considered a "strong connection." Some how the article remained there for years before anyone bothered to notice it. Reference PHP-Nuke if you don't think this is notable. For that matter, any open source CMS. stephen 16:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles can always be improved. Has the software been reviewed or does it appear in any third-party publications that can be used as independent sources to establish notability? Otherwise two ways to delete this article are to place a {{subst:prod|<reason goes here>}} tag at the top and if no one contests it will be deleted in five days, or via the AfD process. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 16:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems I was replying just as you were, see my updated information above. stephen 16:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm also being told there are some independent sources, the same person fixing the doc license will be getting back to me with that information by tomorrow. stephen 17:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Immediacy CMS

Hi Jon, Just wanted to say thanks for you help in editing my article on Immediacy CMS :). Regards Simgard 08:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see an article on a CMS that actually has some notability. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 16:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WHAAAT???=

You don't know who Şahin K is? --Semiramiscan 19:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue is a dozen or so unhelpful edits. I can't imagine a satisfactory explanation, but I've been pleasantly surprised before. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 17:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? However Şahin K does have a tennis academy (but a primitive one) --Semiramiscan 12:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Still, sorry for the vandalism :) --Semiramiscan 23:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

EMU ad tag & edits

Thanks for the help! We are on the right path. I'll give a little help, most likely, but not tonight. Take care and God bless, Jon. Aepoutre 02:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I watch the article, but typically don't contribute unless I can help with minor obvious updates and fixes. I end up reverting a lot of unhelpful content added by bored students editing from the dorms. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 17:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

KJO article

My most sincere apologies Sorry for the mix-up; I took a cursory glance at the article and a URL from External links before I saved, but I guess I wasn't careful enough. Thanks for the heads-up. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

heartdaughter

hi, I do not know which entry I received your comment about. However, on a new subject, I am concerned that other controversial views about Elijah the Prophet are allowed on wiki, but not mine. nevermind ladynada Ladynada 04:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia strong discourages adding links to your own website. Instead, make a suggestion on the article talk page and let a neutral edit decide if there is consensus to include in the article itself. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 12:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sermons

Please take a glance at the article discussion page with regards to your recent edits to sermon. Thanks, WikiJonathanpeter 11:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Bull Terrier

Not wishing to sound rude but unless you own a Bull Terrier, keep your hand off the Bull terrier page. The Triva and Famous Bull terrier sections are fine as is. Please contact me if think I could improve the page in any other way.

The article can be improved by reorganizing the article to avoid the trivia sections. It is appropriate for the maintenance templates to remain in place until the cleanup has been completed. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 12:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Why Template Deletion

Why would you think that the template that had been made long ago be deleted? I mean, would you PLEASE just give it a chance for some people to think about? User:Virtue account

It's not the age of a template or article that determines its suitability. It is the purpose and content. In this case it was designed in the format of an article and not as a template. The content overlapped the topic of one or two other articles, Noah's Flood and Deluge (mythology), and was written as an opinion piece without any sources. In this case, it would be better to contribute to existing articles and provide sources. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 12:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Categories on redirects

I do not think that categorizing redirects is appropriate. There is no such concensus on Wikipedia. Also, if anything, the article that the redirect is pointing to should be included in the same category. So it is double-categorizing. Also, redirects are not articles, they are just useful navigation aides. In any case most people will be looking for stuff by typing in a key word in the search box -- and the redirect will point them directly were needed. Renata 23:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MWC logo.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:MWC logo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. Freedomeagle 21:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mcusa logo.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Mcusa logo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. Freedomeagle 21:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ttv logo.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ttv logo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. Freedomeagle 21:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Emulogo.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Emulogo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. Freedomeagle 21:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bethelks logo.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Bethelks logo.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. Freedomeagle 21:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fresno pacific log.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Fresno pacific log.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. Freedomeagle 21:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bluffton-logo.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Bluffton-logo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. Freedomeagle 21:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ambs-logo.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ambs-logo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. Freedomeagle 21:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gcmc-logo.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Gcmc-logo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. Freedomeagle 21:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)