User talk:Wikipedia brown

This user may have left Wikipedia. Wikipedia brown has not edited Wikipedia since February 19, 2016. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome!

Hello, Wikipedia brown, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! JFW | T@lk 12:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gee

What a great user name! (Really.) As a childhood fan of Encyclopedia Brown, I must say I'm jealous I didn't think of it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, another Cornellian. We seem fairly well-represented on Wikipedia; or maybe I just tend to notice them more. Of course at this point, thinking about being class of '92 is starting to make me feel just old...

A chime in to what Bunchofgrapes said; I'm incredibly jealous as well. Happy editing to you! Te ke 00:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and as for what's up with vandals, no one knows. We just fight 'em, and we win. Te ke 00:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! It's incredibly encouraging to know that other Encyclopedia Brown fans are Wikipedians too. And it's really nice for you to appreciate my name (I don't think many people get the reference)! Wikipedia brown 18:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, look at this pretender: User:Leroyencyclopediabrown ;-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Bono_patriotic_jacket.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bono_patriotic_jacket.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plasmagnetic leviwhatever

There are several wonderful documents regarding all the arcaine technicalities about plasmagnetic levitation, but one needs to buy them from hovertech to read them. Unfortunatly, I do not have the resources to obtain the se documents. Random task 01:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:22961 lg.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:22961 lg.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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.

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. feydey 14:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bathinda - Cleaned Up

Please review the page Bathinda. I have cleaned it up considerably and also added new information. - Anand Singh Brar 12:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edun

I agree with your removal of the reference to Ali Hewson's clothing range. But just for your own information, it is called Edun (I thought it was some exotic Irish name - turns out it is just "nude" in reverse). I am surprised there is no wikipedia article on it. website: [1] --Merbabu 09:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U2 themes

Please be bold and put forward any ideas, even if "half-arsed". Maybe just put them in U2 talk if you are not confident about them. Others can then develop them. see U2 talk page. "Dream out loud" --Merbabu 15:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U2 FA nomination

While I love your enthusiam and your pro-activity, it might be better to at least inform some of the "usual suspect" editors of the U2 article before we nominate it as an FAC. Of course, you are not obliged to, but I for one would have advised against it at this stage, but such a notification would have spurred me into action - there is a whole lot of things i would like to do to improve the article but never got around to. But, it's not that much fun doing it under the madness of FAC. Perhaps I should leave a note on the talk page. Anyway, happy to discuss anytime. regards Merbabu 01:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5 March

OK, I'll try and look at it later tonight. If you haven't heard from me in a couple of days, you are allowed to drop me a rude note demanding my attention. ;-) Cheers. Merbabu 00:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit to U2:

Your recent edit to U2 (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either test edits, vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. Thanks! // VoABot II 22:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They should rename this bot to CRAZY_BOT_9000. Wikipedia brown 22:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U2 picture

I like the new picture! It's so much better than the ones I found. If the author's only request is to be attributed, that's fine. The only thing is that you need to make sure to forward the email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org so that an administrator with OTRS access can verify the permission. As an example, see this picture I uploaded. Pretty much, we need to have proof of an image's source/copyright status, and this does this without making private emails available to the public. Oh, and make sure to include a link to where you uploaded the file when you forward the email. But other than that, everything looks in order, and it's an awesome picture. ShadowHalo 01:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see the problem; I must have misread it the first time. The problem is that, from your description, there is permission to use it on Wikipedia but not anywhere else. If you did actually have permission to use the image in general (not just on Wikipedia), then you can either copy and paste that part of the email as proof. ShadowHalo 20:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the photographer has to allow anyone to use the image for any purpose in order for us to be able to use it, but he can still put some conditions like attribution on it. Sorry for the confusion. ShadowHalo 20:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About maintaining U2

I haven't been much of an "active" user lately, so I won't add myself to the list right now... thanks for remembering, though! --Kristbg 14:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

I posted a response here. The author allowing for the picture to be used on any website still isn't sufficient permission as that limits newspapers, etc. and therefore isn't free to the fullest extent but the author allowing for the picture to be used for any purpose providing he is credited is perfectly fine. Of course you should forward the permission to permissions@wikimedia.org as stated above. The free licenses I mentioned basically allow the picture to be free and more specifically the CC-BY 2.5 (Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License) is very similar to allowing any use provided the author is attributed (CC-BY-SA makes it so any derivative work has to be licensed under the same CC-BY-SA license so if I edit an image that is under CC-BY-SA, I have to release it under CC-BY-SA too, maintaining the cycle of freeness). If you have any more questions feel free to ask me on my talk page as I know copyright and licensing issues can be confusing, especially to those who are new to them but even to people who are more experienced with them. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 03:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U2 improvements

The article is a lot better than it was, but i still don't think it will get FA just yet. The themes and influences section is good. Although, the list of influence could be re-examined. Are there some there that are not notable, and others we've forgotten? Can you believe that the Joshua Tree section previously just listed single release dates and a few more stats? I like the quote boxes. It allows us to be a bit more descriptive and 'colourful' in our language, while not disturbing the flow of the more straight-down-the-line main text.

I always wanted to tidy up and improve the Pop, Achtung, ATYCLB and Bomb sections like i did with J Tree and U Fire. Although some are long enough, (almost too long?), they can all do with a quality check - i'm sure there is stronger info that can replace weak info there. I think the new album section is a bit messy and too long. It shouldn't be a running commentary of the latest quotes regarding it's production. An encyclopedia should state notable info that won't really change, it's not a fan site. Oh, and the pics are shocking. I will try and work on this too. Have a look on Flickr - i actually fouind one and got permission, but then I can't find it now. GAH!!!

Let me have a read over the next few days with a print out, and I will see if i can find more. Merbabu 12:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: You are me

I'm not quite sure what that means, but I think I'll take it as a compliment, lol.

Do you mean that we like the same things? Like Technocracy? BTW if you're interested in it, you could come check out the forums at Technocracy.ca --Hibernian 18:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Would you mind removing Image:TheOffice(US)1-02.jpg from your userpage? Fair use images can only be used in the article mainspace (see WP:FUC). Anyway, I wanted to ask you if there was a connection between your username and this. ShadowHalo 11:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki

Hello Wikipedia brown; I noticed that Craig Ferguson is in your list of favorite articles, and I recently proposed a craig ferguson wiki on the requests wikia, and wanted to know if you would like to contribute to it if it gets accepted. Brain40 21:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy wikilinking

Hey Brown, through out the whole discussion about the U2 album sales, I noticed you link to Wikipedia policies using external links. This is not necessary; you can wikilink to them like so: Wikipedia:No original research, no original research, or WP:NOR. It looks alot better than external links. Just to let you know. Cheers. -- Reaper X 18:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability tag for Tabish Qureshi

Dear Editor, I don't understand why you have put notability tag. I have written the short wiki-stub for Tabish Qureshi, the numerous publications provided are from leading physical journals in the past 20 years, so it is well-known and recognised physicist. Of course he works and lives in India but the country does not matter, I don't think only notable US scientist should have entries in Wikipedia. I think the notability tag is not appropriate, so I think you might wish to remove it. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 03:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

u2 wikiproject

Hi, I've seen you frequently around the article U2 and other related articles. Please consider joining the U2 WikiProject. If you would like to join, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project. Thank you for your time.

Edit summary

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Octane rating. Thank you. --Slashme (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U2 FAC

That's fine - i will see what I can do to help. It's a fine article, but I think getting a pop culture article over to FA is going to be hard.

Peer reviews are usually pointless in my experience, but it's worth trying anyhow. You might find conflicting advice from the FAC - on U2 before we were told on the one hand "too many dates, figures, etc, not enough descriptions/colour". Then another reviewer said essentially the opposite - OK, that's an over-simplification, but hopefully you get my point. Specifically, I think you might find opposition to the text boxes - simply cos they are different, but in my opinion they add colour without being POV - well, they are POV but it is clear that they are without interfering with the flow of the non-POV text. Given that I was the one who put them in there, I am a little bias towards their keeping. My advice would be to leave if one person suggests removing them, but if there is ground swell opinion to remove, then remove them. :-)

Have you done FAC before? It can take a while. I did Indonesia FAC successfully and it was quite grueling. My strong advice is to take every suggestion seriously, even when they are big changes, but don't rush anything if they are not minor. For example, from Indonesia FAC, some of the suggestions I was most against initially quickly became some of my favourite features, while other suggestions I went along with later turned out to be not so good. Sleep on each suggestion - don't rush to change, or rush defend.

The toughest will be the prose - it is in most FACs.

Good to see you back on board, and we will be in contact soon, no doubt. kind regards --Merbabu (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gah - you don't have e-mail enabled. Please send me an e-mail to discuss the FAC. Thanks! Although, no hard feelings if you decline. Merbabu (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look at the article sometime within the next day. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Mega-stardom"...

Removed (again). Hmm - the contribs show that I *did* remove it, then somehow it's back. Probably my mistake. By the way, what do you think of the Steve Averill mention? Did you remove it thinking it wasn't necessary. It can go if you really want. :-) --Merbabu (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your last message suggests you haven't seen my latest e-mail. :-) --Merbabu (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darnit - I leave my trail everywhere. --Merbabu (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TheOffice(US)1-03.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TheOffice(US)1-03.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TheOffice(US)1-04.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TheOffice(US)1-04.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TheOffice(US)1-05.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TheOffice(US)1-05.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TheOffice(US)1-06.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TheOffice(US)1-06.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:U2_Super_Bowl.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:U2_Super_Bowl.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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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. –Dream out loud (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there

Hey - nice to see you back. Hope you can stick around with the U2 articles. Yup, would be nice to see only concrete officially confirmed info going in there rather than rumour and gossip. --Merbabu (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Horton (exercise instructor) and P90X

I'm a bit concerned that these two articles seem to be a walled garden. Perhaps it would have been better to leave the baseball player page where it was and put the exercise instructor in as a hat note instead. Regarding my advert tag, it was more of an impression I got from the article than something I can specifically cite. Feel free to remove it if you disagree. -Dewelar (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Naresh Goyal in Bombay in Nov 2008.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Naresh Goyal in Bombay in Nov 2008.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P90X

Thought you might be interested in what I did with the place. Feel free to have at it if you want. Andman8 (talk) 04:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:USS New York in the Hudson River 200911.jpg

Are You the author of this image? Currently You state that Robert Kopprasch is the author. If You are the author then please clarify this by editing the author field f. ex. Author: Robert Kopprasch (Wikipedia brown). Otherwise You need permission from the author. Best, feydey (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:USS_New_York_in_the_Hudson_River_200911.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:USS_New_York_in_the_Hudson_River_200911.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 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:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 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 uploaded by following this link. 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. feydey (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

READ: 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-en-at-wikimedia.org. Remember to have all his pictures cleared. Best, feydey (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of P90X

I have nominated P90X, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P90X (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Conditional prepayment rate

The article Conditional prepayment rate has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary

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. Bigvernie (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:USS New York in Hudson River 200911.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:USS New York in Hudson River 200911.jpg, which you've sourced to INSUFFICIENT OTRS OVER 1 MONTH OLD. 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. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:USS New York in the Hudson River 200911 and Statue of Liberty.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:USS New York in the Hudson River 200911 and Statue of Liberty.jpg, which you've sourced to INSUFFICIENT OTRS OVER 1 MONTH OLD. 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. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:TheOffice(US)1-02.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:TheOffice(US)1-02.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.---- Jrobb525 21:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:TheOffice(US)1-04.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:TheOffice(US)1-04.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. -- Jrobb525 21:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:TheOffice(US)1-03.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:TheOffice(US)1-03.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. -- Jrobb525 21:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:TheOffice(US)1-05.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:TheOffice(US)1-05.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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:TheOffice(US)1-06.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:TheOffice(US)1-06.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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject U2 needs your help!

Hello! This message is to inform you that Wikipedia:WikiProject U2 needs your input! Please join the discussion on the talk page!Miss Bono (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Million Award

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring U2 (estimated annual readership: 1,258,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing U2 to Featured Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Pathways to Housing

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Pathways to Housing 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 an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Solomon 7968 06:43, 16 December 2013 (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) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Wikipedia brown. You have new messages at Walter Görlitz's talk page.
Message added 05:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Wikipedia brown. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Michael Corbat for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Corbat is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 16:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]