User talk:AgentMole

Image copyright problem with Image:Wahroongabushschoollogo.gif

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Wahroongabushschoollogo.gif. 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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 09:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have addressed this - I've added the Non-free logo to it and stated a rationale--AgentMole (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Wahroongabushschoollogo.gif)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WPS

The article was largely unverifiable (most of it was written in weaselish terms) and generally seemed to have become a coatrack for a recent local issue. In cases like that we normally delete as one would naturally have to consider likely concerns by the school over the slanting of the content (BLP doesn't exactly apply here, but it is in the same vein). Orderinchaos 02:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]