User talk:Boston

Photos

Articles

DYK?

Archives

Ecclesiology

Quotes

• Welcome. - Boston (talk · contribs) - 20:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is in reference to your photograph of the statue of Saint Lucy in the Saint Leonard of Port Maurice church in Boston. Two notes:

1/ The image name (SantaLuccia.jpg) contains a typographical error which may hinder searches. Also, I believe images should use all lower case in naming; ie, santalucia.jpg

2/ The image page for this image includes a note indicating that the image is a candidate to be moved to wikimedia commons, the preferred home for media. I am interested in linking to this image for a project and am considering moving it.

Woodlandpath (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 March, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cara Duff-MacCormick, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

On 23 March, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Moonchildren, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

• Thank you.--Boston (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You made a comment on the Chili Bowl article using the term "gotcha". Someone else wrote an article about Gotcha Day, and they made a comment about how you used the term in your comment. I never heard of the term "Gotcha Day". Please comment on the Gotcha Day's hook. I hope you can understand this message because it was hard to write. Royalbroil 00:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I thought your comment was misinterpreted. Royalbroil 01:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On April Fool's, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sonia Chang-Díaz, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On April Fool's, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Asher Roth, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On April Fool's, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article For the Love of Ray J, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! --Boston (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the 200 DYK mark was something I did work toward, the beauty of the program is that each article is its own reward. When I see one of these articles was edited on my watchlist, taking another peek at one of my creations reminds me that I filled in a little hole in Wikipedia, adding information about something that never appeared here before. While the individual DYK notices of a latest entry being added to the main page are more than enough of a reward, I do appreciate your recognition, especially as it comes from someone who has a wide and fascinating portfolio of DYKs. Keep up the great work, which should be a reward of its own. Alansohn (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I feel that the comment you object to was perfectly reasonable, given the circumstances, but you are entitled to your opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My point was that the circumstances don't matter and that the whole Wikipedia process breaks down when we talk to each other like that. It's not merely my opinion; civility is one of Wikipedia's core principles. At any rate, thanks for taking my message under consideration. --Boston (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bad - I didn't realize that this was a discussion in progress, not an IP vandalizing a page. - Fastily (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did you know I was from the South, and missed some good greasy, artery-clogging, lip smacking, finger licking fried chicken? I appreciate the time you took to send me some "comfort food." Sometimes, it is the little acts of kindness that make all the unpaid, and often thankless hours of tedious work on Wikipedia worthwhile. So thanks again for taking the time to consider that people have feelings, and we aren't just mindless automatons. You are a great asset to Wikipedia, and I'm sorry that I acted like an ass during the discussions. Uncle G was not nearly as hard on me as I've been on myself all day for being such an ass during the discussions yesterday. I gave myself a time out, and have apologized to everyone I may have slighted during my emotional response yesterday. Thanks again! --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 03:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that barnstar! I was hoping I would get one! --Marshall T. Williams (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter. Enjoy your break. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Boston, I hope you are doing well. If you would have liked to remove those comments you are more than welcome to do so. Hope you will have a blessed retreat and a Happy Easter. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm editing after posting my Wikibreak notice (bad form, I think!) I'll see if I can cut them out without making the flow of conversation seem odd. Best wishes...I hope April showers will bring May flowers where you live. --Boston (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the advice, yes no point wasting time on people that get a kick out of sniding others. happy Easter. LibStar (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lovely picture of the New Fire! Thanks for adding it. Tb (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. My camera isn't great and my such "shots in the dark" rarely produce acceptable results. --Boston (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the source call her an outspoken lesbian? I can't find it anywhere but if you can confirm it I will look again. She seems if anything to be a bit dismissive of the whole thing – as though she just wanted to get that bit out of the way and get on with her life... I'm also uncertain about the source and its reliability on the subject. It is four years old but it is also from a British newspaper. Her background appears to be a Catholic in Northern Ireland and then it could become overly political (although, and I'm possibly running away with things a bit, but is it best to rely only on this source for describing her personality/sexuality?) There must be something from Ireland as well to balance it out a bit... "outspoken" and "lesbian" does seem a bit much, especially for an encyclopedia – perhaps keep one and drop the other? Although I still can't figure out how she is outspoken about the subject just because she wrote a book... the ending is a bit eerie where she hopes they'll meet with zimmer frames when they're eighty... she didn't even make seventy... --candle•wicke 19:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, she's out as a lesbian for certain. And for an Irish celebrity, she's an "outspoken lesbian" but the article doesn't use that two word phrase specifically. As I said here, I think mentioning that she is a lesbian adds context and interest to her statement about working exclusively with men. Nevertheless, I was going to let this matter go as I was getting a sense that User:Snappy thought it sounded closed-minded (i.e. we don't say when someone is straight, so why mention that someone is gay?) I felt less sympathetic to User:Snappy's viewpoint after our discussion about including the pronunciation respelling "bwin-ish-TYOH-ir" (which I cited to a "Learning Irish" website) resulted in some very uncivil comments. Since for the past year, you haven't challenged the two points that User:Snappy wants changed, I thought you'd like to opine. Now, I'd advise you against engaging this editor in dialogue unless you're in the mood for someone to be rude to you without provocation! I posted a note about the latter issue at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts; whether anyone will think it's worth comment is uncertain given the bigger fish we usually have to fry. PS - Do you say "Maundy Thursday" or "Holy Thursday"? Have you heard both terms in use? The re-naming discussion about this is over but I am curious. --Boston (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And he did seem ever so nice when he requested I create his favourite television show a few months ago... :( yet from your conversation with him I can see where the username might have come from... a reaction anyone could fall victim to in reality but I didn't think it possible to such an extent what with "save page" and "show preview" options... and he's also been meddling with some of my templates... :-( grrr... :-) I know the colours on the Celebrity Bainisteoir one were horrendous but must all colours be removed from templates? I didn't think it was offensive to have some colours in my templates... I've noticed it in television shows from other countries... but whatever do you mean by "for an Irish celebrity"? Do non-Irish celebrites speak out more on the subject of lesbianism? I probably should have looked this article through in much more detail last year... but I suppose since I'm the only one who seems to be contributing to this area on a regular basis (as is the case with some other areas) I probably didn't find the time... I'm not even sure I'd pronounce it that way myself... especially the first syllable... but that must be down to the different dialects... --candle•wicke 23:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And "Holy" for me, thanks (I have heard of Maundy though but not to any great extent). --candle•wicke 23:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• By "for an Irish celebrity" I was mostly referring to the size of the population. --Boston (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid I don't see how the size of the population makes her outspoken. It must have gotten lost in translation... :-( --candle•wicke 23:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Lol, it's okay. I mean we probably can't find 100 out lesbians from Ireland notable enough for Wikipedia while we could certainly find that many from a larger country like United States. --Boston (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I shall consider that a worthwhile challenge! Some day, maybe next month, maybe even a decade from now, I will return and dump the names of all one hundred of them across your talk page! ;) --candle•wicke 00:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to User:Snappy, I believe you now to be even more correct with regard to his conduct. Said user approached me (quite politely it must be said) not long after the above and before long we seemed to be engaged in the most difficult of exchanges, where sparks were flying at everything from the elderly and disabled to my edits ("vomit") and intelligence. He has now presumably eternally banished me from his talk page (which perhaps goes some way to explaining the relative lack of activity there). My apologies and attempts to pass the whole affair off as not worth getting worked up about don't seem to have done anything to soften the mood either which, considering I did not even make the first approach, seems even more unusual. I am left wondering if this type of thing occurs on a regular basis and what fireworks would ensue if he encountered someone less willing to maintain dialogue... :O --candle•wicke 13:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is appropriate to write about that in these articles. I notice the Sampan, for instance, wrote about when the health center planned to expand into Quincy, MA: [1] Because reliable sources cover this, it is appropriate to post this in Wikipedia. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies, I partially misread what you wrote. We don't typically list street addresses; that and the content of the references threw me off when I read the change. I've restored the edit by moving your edit and the mention of Tufts Medical Center to a section on "Health care" within the Chinatown, Boston article. Best wishes, and again, I apologize for my careless edit. --Boston (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! - As another idea related to neighborhood articles, why not try to discuss which public schools are in certain neighborhoods. I'm not sure how much information Boston Public Schools releases, but it would be useful to explain which schools have ties to which neighborhoods. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can certainly include information about what school is physically located in what neighborhood. I won't discourage you from doing that. I just don't recommend trying to do this so that it has a practical benefit to readers as Wikipedia isn't intended to be a directory. You will never be able to comprehensively demonstrate what school serves what neighborhood as none of the Boston neighborhoods are officially defined (I can refer you to proof of this if you're skeptical). You might say "Joe Q. Doe Elementary school serves Dorchester and parts of South Boston and Roxbury" only to find people saying that their Roxbury street served by JQD is actually Dorchester since JQD serves it. Will they be correct or incorrect? Neither and/or both, because of the ambiguity of boundaries in Boston. Also, there are so many types of schools in Boston -- ordinary public, private non-parochial, private parochial, test schools, charter schools, etc. Also too, schools in Boston are always opening, closing, re-opening, moving, getting restructured and otherwise changing. With that in mind, the best you could do is take a "snap shot" of the situation and that's not very encyclopedic. My advice is joyfully forge ahead, but don't worry about consistency or completeness in bringing more info about Boston schools to Wikipedia articles about Boston neighborhoods. Include what you can, when you can, and have fun editing. --Boston (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, it seems like the way Boston's zones are complicates things. In my work in Houston articles, school boundaries mostly tend to stay the same in the central neighborhoods, so usually the school info lasts a long time. Also HISD provides info on when schools opened and closed, so that helps make the sections less directory-like. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I already alluded to this Harvard Rappaport Institute article about the ambiguous neighborhood boundaries of Boston. It's an good, very short, read. --Boston (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, make sure it emphasizes that it is the largest in terms of book volumes. When I first removed the statement it merely said "the largest municipal public library" - Largest in what? Now that we know this specifically, it helps to say "largest in terms of book volumes" as that is specific. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately the link cited in the paragraph died and there is no access date on it. Also nothing turns up on web.archive.org... WhisperToMe (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyhow please see how I added the schools to the East Boston and Dorchester articles - that way it is not directory-like and shows the histories of the communities. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouraging words. That was the fun of it: Finding out that there were loads of sources out there that could be used for this. Facts stranger than fiction make great Wikipedia subjects. When the inevitable AfD comes, I hope you'll be on the barracades. -- Noroton (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I gonna get my third Oddball Barnstar for answering this? When two nouns form an adjective, it gets a hyphen in most stylebooks. That's pretty standard style in the U.S. and even the U.K., where a lot of people also drop the hyphen (barbaric practice). Check out Hyphen#Compound modifiers (which repeats the Brit barbarism, but at least only asserts that it's an alternate form). The hyphen is useful in this case to prevent the horrors that would result if a reader should glance at the article name and think the subject is about folding of any old paper in hotel toilets. That subject, for which I'd write a WP article if I could find sources for it, would be titled "Hotel-toilet paper folding". See the difference? This is how we uphold civilization. -- Noroton (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please stop vanderlizing my talk page with you opinions! I am trying to write an article about Hotel-toilet-paper-folding-related injuries and need total concentration. --Boston (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC) (c; <-- wink[reply]

Your comments about my contributions to the Maundy Thursday debate are too kind. I am disappointed to see it fizzle like that; nobody seemed especially concerned about the POV issue, and instead simply advocated for what they were familiar with. MrArticleOne (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse the delay, I was absent but am present at present. The answer to your question is no (I think). I don't think I've ever discussed barnstars with anyone before. But perhaps you've found a suitable person by now anyway. Good luck! --candle•wicke 19:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching the section removal go back and forth and perhaps it's best to leave it out. The way that section is currently written serves little purpose other than to give a rap sheet for British Pakistani terrorists. The lack of any discursive prose makes the section seem like it is intended to slight British Pakistanis. The topic of terrorism/extremists should be noted but a list of British Pakistani terrorists isn't really doing a good job of that. I'd be in favour of leaving it out until something more meaningful is written. The first paragraph in the main of this draft article is a better representation of what should be there. In fact maybe a modification of the first two paragraphs may suffice for the main article now? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boston. We seem to have a problem with sockpuppeting on the Moors article again. There have been numerous IPs & recently-created accounts that have been repeatedly removing the same material from the article as the blocked accounts of before. Another editor has started a talk page discussion that logs what has transpired up until now. I also notice that one of the blocked accounts has removed the sock drawer you added to his talk page, which contains the details of the previous sock case. Cheers, Causteau (talk) 05:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those two will be back on the Main Page soon at DYK. Or at least they ought to be... they're giving me ever so much grief about the size of my nomination so Baz may be removed for being irrelevant. CB also has "seasons" now, like all good reality television shows. I believe this is a first for Ireland on the English Wikipedia. I couldn't think of who better to notify of this occurrence than you, since if there were a WikiProject Celebrity Bainisteoir you would most probably be the main other member, from checking the history and fiddling around with my tool. Snappy is somehow in third place but we speak no more. That tool also seems to inform that I just made the 100th edit to the article. In other news, two of this season's bainisteoirí who were previously articleless have now been satisfied. Katherine Lynch and Andrea Roche are they. Just thought you'd like to know. :) Happy Mayday or Bealtaine as I believe it is, according to the Main Page. ;) --candle•wicke 03:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If I visit family at home this summer perhaps I'll finally see the show. --Boston (talk) 07:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's finishing soon but I suppose it will be available somewhere or another... :) do you have lots of family? --candle•wicke 15:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I'll cross out my silly idiotic personal question. :) --candle•wicke 01:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:SandUpYerAss.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of faux pas (third nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As this page seems to have been split, i.e. merged, it cannot be deleted per the GFDL as we must maintain public the attribution of edit histories. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This file was moved to Commons from English Wikipedia, but some description information may have got lost in the process.

As you are noted as the original uploader, or in the history for the file, it would be appreciated if you could help in reconstructing this information.

Thanks for you assistance and keep uploading 'free' media :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Boston. The Appleton Farms article was reported at WP:CV seven days ago and has come due for disposition. I noticed that you hadn't been notified, so I'm relisting this for another week to give you time should you wish to check it out. Thanks. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Kibbelgaarn body has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The subject of this page seems to lack notability. It is briefly mentioned in what appears to be main article covering this general subject, Bog body. Alternatively, this article could be (and seems to be already) merged into the Bog body article if it is notable enough for that.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Linkfix2001 (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Wanted to drop you a note that when you want to relocate an article, you generally do so by moving it. Copying the contents and pasting them into another space, as you did with Our Fathers to Our Fathers (novel), is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history. If you move text in this way without providing a direct link to the original article, it is a licensing violation, as we must give credit to the copyright owners of our text (that is, our contributors). I'm fixing this one, but if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen so that an administrator can put the history back with the article. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Forest Hills Station at night.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Forest Hills Station at night.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Forest Hills Station at night.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 03:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Awkward Animals. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Boston! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 944 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Sallie Ann Glassman - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Gyromantis sp.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Boston. I was wondering how we could add a BWH logo to the Brigham and Women's Hospital page. The other Harvard hospitals have logos, and I am not sure how to add one without violating copyright or other rules. Any feedback is appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpeccora (talk • contribs) 21:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Houseofscandalbook.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Junqueirópolis.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:IchabodWashburn.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading this media, It would be appreciated if you could add :

• 1-2 paragraphs explaining what is shown in the image.

As well as helping those categorising the image, it will help place the image in context and allow other users of the image (including academics) to make better use of the image :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:SNL Logo.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be appreciated if you could add :

• 1-2 paragraphs explaining what is shown in the image.
• A species classification for the organism shown

As well as helping those categorising the image, it will help place the image in context and allow other users of the image (including academics) to make better use of the image :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading this media, It would be appreciated if you could add :

• 1-2 paragraphs explaining what is shown in the image.

As well as helping those categorising the image, it will help place the image in context and allow other users of the image (including academics) to make better use of the image :)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading this media, It would be appreciated if you could add :

• 1-2 paragraphs explaining what is shown in the image.

As well as helping those categorising the image, it will help place the image in context and allow other users of the image (including academics) to make better use of the image :)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading this media, It would be appreciated if you could add :

• 1-2 paragraphs explaining what is shown in the image.

As well as helping those categorising the image, it will help place the image in context and allow other users of the image (including academics) to make better use of the image :)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading this media, It would be appreciated if you could add :

• 1-2 paragraphs explaining what is shown in the image.

As well as helping those categorising the image, it will help place the image in context and allow other users of the image (including academics) to make better use of the image :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection 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.

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. Courcelles (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boston.

The license of your images at commons have been changed by an IP from PD to Cc-by-sa-3.0. There are two problems with that. 1) Images can not be relicensed. If the have been in PD they will always be in in PD 2) If an IP does the change, it might have been you but nobody knows. That is why the changes have been reverted. You can change the license to {{PD-user|Your Name}} if you want. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 14:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:CommodoreNutt.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Davi Kopenawa Yanomami.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Hawayo Takata.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you are listed as a Wikipedian in Boston. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Wikipedia assignments at schools in Boston and Cambridge, which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.

Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).

If you live near Boston and you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, or know someone else from the area who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page.

If you're an experienced and active Wikipedian, you might be interested alternatively in becoming an Online Ambassador. The role of Online Ambassadors is to serve as mentors for students; it doesn't require any in-person outreach. Take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Statilia maculata 2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kelly ^hi! 00:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Houseofscandal.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 00:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Shawmut.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 00:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Houseofscandal2006.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 00:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sleevegarter.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 00:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sajama Lines.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 00:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Saucy.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 00:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Hawayo Takata.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 00:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AdamBruce.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Kelly ^hi! 01:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:FinlagganPursuivant2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 01:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Picklepin.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 01:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:XIX.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 01:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sarrialuncheon.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 01:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Notg1111.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 01:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mabaso.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 01:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Themba.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 01:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Houseofscandalblackwiki.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 01:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sanpetru biserica2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 01:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Our-Lady-of-China.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading