User talk:Enfestid

Bpg23 03:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)==Welcome!==[reply]

Hi Enfestid, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!

Editing tutorial, learn to have fun with Wikipedia.

Picture tutorial, instructions on uploading images.

How to write a great article, to make it an featured article status.

Manual of Style, how articles should be written.

Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :

RC Patrol - Keeping a lookout for vandalism.

Cleanup - Help make unreadable articles readable.

Requests - Wanted on WP, but hasn't been created.

Merge - Combining duplicate articles into one.

Wikiprojects - So many to join, so many to choose from...Take your pick!

Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)

- Mailer Diablo 14:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Identical pages

Hey,

I noticed you made two new pages, The Apex Theory and Apex Theory, with edit summaries indicating they were copies of another Wikipedia page. Rather than duplicated pages this way, the preferred way is to create redirects. Simply type: #redirect [[other_page]] That way, the wikipedia servers only need to keep one copy of the page, and the other pages will point to it.

Also, with names of bands and such, please keep proper capitalization: e.g., it should be Apex Theory rather than Apex theory.

If you could redirect two of the articles to whichever one is the most appropriate or correct usage (their website seems to indicate it might be The Apex Theory, but I don't really know anything about them, and you seem to, so it'd be better if you made the decision, not me), that'd be great.

Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia! --Jonathan Christensen 15:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Steve Prefontaine

Hi Enfestid, I've finally got round to replying to your points on Steve Prefontaine's talk page. Lisiate 03:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:VoKEE Concert.jpg

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:VoKEE Concert.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Admrboltz (T | C) 01:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crysis

Well, if you are developing this, have you considered that by publishing here you are putting the name of your game into the public domain? Not to smart if you want to have copyright protection. Kd4ttc 05:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? I'm not developing the game, Crytek is. Did I type something wrong saying I was involved in the game?

Enfestid 12:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol thats funny what was said above, anyways - good job on the article about Crysis. 155.109.5.21 12:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial metal

hey, just wondering if you could discuss your reasons for reverting the artists section on industrial metal on that articles talk page? thanks --MilkMiruku 08:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that's cool, it was more the formatting i was refering to, but see Talk:Industrial rock for a discussion on the inclusion of certain artists/bands on the industrial metal and industrial rock articles. --MilkMiruku 14:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to kill the revert war. If i made a mistake then so sue me. Ley Shade 04:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

30 Seconds to Mars

Remember to mark your edits as minor only when they genuinely are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'."
Please don't remove material from articles without expanation; this is regarded as vandalism. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first, it doesn't matter who added the material; articles don't belong to anyone — as soon as the material is added, it's part of Wikipedia. Secondly, while what counts as minor isn't precise, by no stretch of the imagination could it include removing a whole section (even if the material was [partly] duplicated elsewhere), etc.

In addition, the infobox contains names, while the material that you removed included instruments; it is thus not a mere duplication. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: Assume good faith.
The way that the page looks in your browser with your settings isn't a good reason for setting image sizes, etc.
200px is standard for music infoboxes such as albums, singles, etc.
There's no need to start a second item in a list with a capital letter. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't understand assuming good faith, there's nothing more I can say.
Different browsers with different settings will display text size differently, so that fiddling with the picture in order to make the text fit inevitably fails for some people.
I could list even more article in which editors have made images too big (though far more in which they haven't); that's not the point.
First, standard English rules out a random capital in the middle of a list, and the Wikipedia MoS goes along with this. Capitals are used for the beginnings of sentences, proper names, and words in titles (aprt from prepositions, conjunctions, etc.). What is the basis for the capital that you're trying to add?
The MoS also clearly states that years should only be linked if they're especially relevant to the content of the article (Dates and numbers). Again, the fact that many editors misunderstand or are unaware of this isn't a good reason for linking all years. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angels and Airwaves

That might need to have the {sprotect} setting. But it only had the template, not the actual setting. That's like having a "beware of dog" sign without a dog. I can't do anything now, but if it's still a problem later drop me a note and I'll add set the semi-protection. -Will Beback 16:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have another look at your edit [1] before reverting it! HawkerTyphoon 23:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Panic Channel

Thanks for the advice but I really don't agree with your point of view regarding The Panic Channel. I'm new to this and not sure if I'm following the right protocol, but to begin with they certainly aren't a supergroup. A supergroup is comprised of members from more than one band which is, for want of a better word, super. All three former members of Jane's Addiction fall into this category, even Chris Chaney who only appers on Strays, but the new singer, Steve Isaacs, certainly doesn't. If the original two members plus Chris Chaney had Perry Farrell as their lead singer they would still just be a normal group, why should replacing one of the greatest frontmen of all time with a nobody shift them into the sphere of a supergroup? If they had gotten Mike Patton or someone that had already been a succesful artist in their own right then they would be a supergroup, but seeing as this is not the case, they do not qualify as a supergroup.

In terms of their genre, I think that it is a bit strong to completely disregard the possibility that they are Emo just because of the negative connotations that you may associate with the term. If anything, what is on the page wholly supports the argument. For example, "The band's name refers to a state of panic induced by the world media" is a classic example of what is considered Emo. All the other bands that fall into this category have one thing in common other than music style, they are unable to deal with the real world and the success they have generated and generally go around feeling sorry for themselves and their percieved problems, this is exactly what is presented in the quote above. This is not a bad thing, it is just how the bands attempt to relate to their disenfranchised fans.

The first single, why cry, is further evidence that they are Emo, because the depth of the music is completely lacking and they have clearly just tried to write a radio friendly single. They failed.

Basically, everyone acknowledges that the Emo genre exists, but nobody is willing to accept that they like it. Take a look around the other pages of bands that are at the forefront of the Emo movement and even they don't say that they are Emo, why not? because they are ashamed. This does not make it correct to stop calling these bands that are Emo just that because they don't want to admit that they have no credibility, it defeats the entire point of an impartial website.

Bpg23 03:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Bpg23Bpg23 03:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You state "The name makes them emo? Since when did the name of a band have anything to do with the music itself? It never did." Why don't you read the sentence on the panic channel page that reads "The band's name refers to a state of panic induced by the world media as well as "channeling the energy inside and outside the room when we create these songs ... we like to think of creating music as a way to channel the panic into something tangible," as stated by Navarro"

I question the status of this band as a supergroup, and it is a question that is supported by the discussion page on supergroups. While the definition of a supergroup on wikipedia states that one is comprised of band members who have made an impression already (which three of the four band members most certainly have) it is unclear in the definition whether all members of the band need to have done so. This debate continues on the supergroup discussion page and it seems that a consensus has been reached that bands that replace a member with an unknown or relatively unknown and change the name of the band should not qualify. I think this gives reasonable grounds to reconsider the notion of the panic channel being a supergroup. Any thoughts? 132.181.7.1 22:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Panic_Channel"

30STM Numbers Reverting

Since you and I seem to be the only people editing that page that know what the RIAA certs. actually mean, I figure I'd run this question by you. What do you think the chances are that we can get semi-protection of that one section from unregistered users? They're the only ones that I see causing the problem on the page, and since they more than likely don't know about the history or the discussion page, reverting and telling them to look at either page is going to be pointless since they likely won't do it. Hackstar18 04:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Institute

Thanks for rephrasing the sentence on the Institute (band) page. I like it. I've been struggling with that sentence, LOL. Eddyspeeder 01:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HELP!!

I have an answer! can you unlock the Papa Roach page?? PLEASE?? AFI-PUNK

Zanders5k

The following discussion took place on Zanders5k's talk page but has since been removed. I am placing it here as I do not want the information lost for future disputes. The information can still be seen in his history, but I am placing it here for ease of use. Enfestid 18:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

30 Seconds to Mars Vandalism

Please stop vandalizing the 30 Seconds to Mars page. We have already discussed how they are progressive in the discussion page, so please read. Their first album was progressive. Please read the discussion and stop changing the page. If it continues, I will seek help in dealing with you. Thank you. Enfestid 22:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the discussion on the 30 Seconds to Mars page and I still don't believe that they fit the genre of Progressive rock. Also, I noticed that you mainly edit pages of alternative rock artists and you don't seem to be a fan of any other progressive rock bands. Most artists considered progressive rock are artists like Yes (band) and Genesis (band). Though I will not edit the page anymore I think 30 seconds to mars should at least be put under new prog. Zanders5k

I only edit alternative rock and post-grunge pages because those are primarily the pages I create myself. Most progressive rock pages are already started. I'll look at the new prog definition to see if they fit.

Enfestid 23:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that didn't take long to read. There isn't much of a page for "new prog." That being said, they still don't fit the definition given there. It says that there are only progressive elements in "new prog" bands. If you read what I posted about their first album, that is most definitely not the case according to the Wikipedia definition. Have you heard the self-titled debut by 30 Seconds to Mars?

Enfestid 23:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard "Capricorn (A Brand New Name)", "Edge of the Earth " and "Buddha for Mary" and they seemed more like artistic alternative rock with industrial elements. I like several songs by them, and I don't hate them at all. I just don't think they are progressive. Zanders5k

Also, they never go against common song structures of verse, chorus and bridge and they don't use uncommon time signatures and rhythmic techniques, or at least not what I've heard so far. Zanders5k

I don't think that people would label them "Progressive" if the band hadn't said that they were. Zanders5k

Are you a fan of any other progressive rock bands? Zanders5k

Genre Citations

No, they are not necessary. If there is a problem with a genre reference, it should be discussed in the discussion page (obviously, given the name) and decided there. Unless there is a massive debate, there is no reason to request a citation for a band's genre. If you want to look at precedent, look at any Wikipedia featured article that is of a musician. Enfestid 02:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to mention, but we've been over the 30 Seconds to Mars genre debate numerous times before. I've proven my point numerous times over and even given you citations (the band's Myspace, for instance), so I think your request is a moot point at best. And it doesn't take long to type in an artist and a genre into Google and get a result... what's the point?

Enfestid 02:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Why do you keep going to band articles and demanding citations for genres you don't agree with?"

Gee I don't know, maybe because I'd like to have the information on wikipedia to be CORRECT.Hoponpop69 21:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous well known music websites that are unreliable, allmusic guide and lastfm has been deemed on numerous talk pages as bad sources. If NO OTHER sources agree with a source, It is clearly unreliable. I will be reverting your edit.Hoponpop69 21:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the talk pages of Papa Roach, Green Day, The Offspring, Blink-182, and the Allmusic guide page itself to name a few off the top of my head. Somewhere in all of those pages various people state allmusic guide is not a reliable source.Hoponpop69 21:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll repeat myself again, that source also lists simple plan, limp bizkit, and good charlotte as alt rock. NO OTHER sources will agree with all of that, it is unreliable.Hoponpop69 21:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation on genres

Actually, Citation on genres is necessary some times. On a site like wikipedia a person in charge of an article can claim a band is a genre and refuse to change it, so citation for a genre makes perfect sense.Zanders5k 01:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:30STM Group Photo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:30STM Group Photo.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, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by 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 00:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -Panser Born- (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:30STM Group Photo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:30STM Group Photo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -Panser Born- (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

half life 2 episode two

where did you get the source for "sept 26" release date?

I wasn't the one who put that up. But the person got it from a few previews (IGN has that as the release date, and so do a few other previews).

Enfestid 05:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sophomore

You missed the point. I said "U.S. English is APPROPRIATE," not "INAPPROPRIATE." The original versions read sophomore; then Violetriga changed sophomore to second, and I changed back to the original versions. —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 22:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

Please do not move pages without gaining a consensus on the article's talk page. Naconkantari 04:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please see WP:MOVE for the correct procedure to move pages. Simply copying and pasting a page is not permitted as it breaks article histories. Naconkantari 04:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angels and Airwaves

Check it out, I only moved the redirects to point where the article was currently located. Someone changed the title of Angels and Airwaves to show the official typeface, so I first changed some redirects I found to show this. then the title got reverted so I changed the redirects back. Nouse4aname 08:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the Angels and Airwaves page, I changed the redirect that was created by Naconkantari which directed to the page Λngels & Λirwaves. I changed it to redirect to Angels & Airwaves. In any case, the title of the page should be A&A. not typefaced, but with & not and. Please get your facts straight. Nouse4aname 14:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I did not actually move any pages, all I did was alter the redirects of other variations of spelling to point to the current location of the article. Nouse4aname 15:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. I am not mistaken. Go back. Look at my edit history. I made NO moves. I made three redirects. to Angels and Airwaves, then click on the actual link below the title to display the Angels and Airwaves page. The redirect there says Redirect to Angels & Airwaves. This is what I did. If you check the edit history, Naconkantari changed it to use the typeface font, I changed it to A&A. I did not move any pages. Please, in future, check things out. Nouse4aname 15:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your information; this is how it seems things happened. Ian Lee moved Angels and Airwaves to Λngels & Λirwaves. You reverted this. Naconkantari reverted your edit. You reverted Naconkantari. Naconkantari reverted you. again. So the Angels and Airwaves page redirected to Λngels & Λirwaves. By this point Λngels & Λirwaves had been changed to Angels & Airwaves, by Naconkantari, I believe. All I did was change the redirect on Angels and Airwaves from Λngels & Λirwaves to Angels & Airwaves. This is how Angels and Airwaves ended up "moved" to Angels & Airwaves. As you can see. I did not do it. Why you are getting so worked up about this, I do not know. As it stands, the page now has the correct formatting for the title, and should remain where it is. I trust this explains it, and you will see it was not me, and that you were mistaken... Nouse4aname 15:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adema

Hey Enfestid, since you seem to be the caretaker of the Adema page, I thought I'd talk to you. Since I founded it I always felt a fatherly love towards it, so I rewrote the page, and put it here. Leave your thoughts on the talk page! If you find any errors or know of any information you want me to include, just make a note of it.

Also, the article needs more pictures. I noticed during my research that you're pretty active on the Adema forums. So you probably know of people who have pictures of the band playing live; if you do, could you send them to me? (onika04@yahoo.com). Make sure you have the photographer's name for each pic, and that they've given permission to use it under a permissive license (eg public domain, GPL, Creative Commons), because I can't post copyrighted material. I can then photoshop them to make them nice and put them on the site. If you can't get any pics, don't worry about it.

I'm also thinking about putting audio samples on the site. I have all the CDs, but I don't have Cold and Jaded (obviously). I don't want to put a stream-rip from MySpace in the article, so do you know how I can get access to a CD-quality version of the song? An MP3 is okay but a WAV file is ideal; if you have the single handy I can help you rip it (I'm a computer guy). You can then mail it to me so I can take a clip from it, compress it, and put it in the article. If you can't, I'll just wait for the CD to come out before putting it up.

I'll maybe make it official in a week or something, and I'll continue to tweak it. Thanks a lot! :) -- Lalala666 00:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, just looked at it, and it looks awesome! You did an amazing job! If I had much time I was going to go through it, but it looks like you did a better job than I ever could. Great work!

Enfestid 03:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just passing through, and noticed the exchange of reverts you are having with 67.80.47.183 (talk · contribs), on album sales. I hope you manage to sort it all out. I have no idea. Check out that a footnote on the reverted sales figures seems to have lost its reference. More detail at the relevant talk page. I have posted a three revert rule warning on the anonymous editors talk page. I'm just letting you know as well that even if you are in the right on the facts, you need to be careful yourself on those reverts. Cheers and good luck with it —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crysis System Requirements Section

About the crysis requirements, i am pleased to know that you delete information that doesn't have cold hard evidence to it but the section i put up there had a hyperlink to it in the very end under the References section. I can't find it now, maybe i had forgotten to add it in, but i will search again for the site i got the information from and this time, i will be sure to state my source at the end in the References section and at the end of the Requirements section. And if you encounter a problem with it this time do not delete it, just tell me and i will be happy to correct it.KittenKiller

Image source problem with Image:Apex Theory Logo - 02.JPG

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Apex Theory Logo - 02.JPG. 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.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. 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:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by 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 19:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 19:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Crysis.

Just to let you know that I responded to your concern there a few days ago, and Anonymous Dissident did as well. · AndonicO ^Talk 19:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I responded as well.

Enfestid 19:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Kevin Drake

A tag has been placed on Kevin Drake requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.

Image:Pressure45.jpg

I have tagged Image:Pressure45.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Thepanicchannel.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Thepanicchannel.jpg. 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Myvokeelogo.png)

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "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. Aspects (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Borderlands

Is Borderlands an open world game?Dohvahkiin (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Institute (band) logo.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Institute (band) logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 14:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Huntregionallogotransparent.png

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Riding The Walls.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]