User talk:Brumski

Archives

/Archive1

I have set up an archive for you, per the request on my talk page. In the future, just cut-and-paste any old discussions from your talk page here and paste them into the archive page I created for you. Some pages you might want to read include WP:USERPAGE and WP:SUBPAGE which help explain more about how to maintain your userspace... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1 day or 24 hours before the Jimmy Wales talk page was protected there were 69 edits. 5 of them were edits where someone removed comments or information that someone else had added, I assume because they thought the comment was disruptive or trolling etc. 1 of those 5 was someone removing their own comment, I think because they had added it to the wrong section

These are the ones where something significant was removed or reverted, i.e. the "diffs" where the new version has a paragraph missing or a whole edit that someone else added missing. I.e. a big block of yellow

• [1] SBPrakash reverted her or him self for putting information in the wrong section
• [2] Doc glasgow removed a question that had a source by an IP address asking why there was "no mention of his alleged expense "rort"
• [3] Doc glasgow removed the same question as above after an administrator had put it back
• [4] GRBerry removed a list of news article headings without links that looks more like a rant than an attempt to add sources
• [5] Doc glasgow removed a ranting question asking why the "expenses rort" information wasn't included

There were 69 to go through so I had to automate the process, so I might have missed some. I don't think I did though. So by one very simplified way of looking at it there were 4 disruptions that someone thought were serious enough to remove. If you're interested, read them and see if you think they should cause the page to be protected. AntHolnes (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ha! and thanks for adding references to SS Kiche Maru. I noticed that one reference ((1879) Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute. United States Naval Institute, 1239.) bears an 1879 publication date, whereas the typhoon took place in 1912. Is a date available for the edition that refers to the sinking of Kiche? Best regards, Fg2 (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the date of that specific issue - I used the ISBN and the Template Builder at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Tools to build the cite and it's given that date. It's also the date Google Books gives. The reference has an URL to the publication at Google Books within it though, if you want to read it. It lists other dates of 1904, 1912 and 1905 in the snippet. Is it possible the proceedings were first published in 1879 and were then reissued each year? Ha! (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a possibility. I don't have specifics, though. Thanks again. Fg2 (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was wrong about getting the date from the ISBN. I got the reference from the Google Books URL the reference links to and it doesn't have an ISBN listed there so I can't have (and they didn't have ISBN's then anyway) It's likely Google Books just has the wrong date, I'll remove it. Ha! (talk) 08:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ha, no I can't remember the 'maritime/merchant' website that had Kichemaru info. right off hand. I'll post it when I come across it again. I saw the wiki article you started on the S.S DAKOTA. Thanks for that, she's a ship worth remembering. I don't know if you know it or not but there's a striking photo of DAKOTA sinking by the bow eerily like the Titanic. Maybe it can be cleared and used for Wikipedia. It's at this URL: www.cthistoryonline.org/cdm-cho/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/cho&CISOPTR=9318&CISOBOX I never saw this photo before and found it while searching Altavista for the Kichemaru/merchant website. I always logged onto Altavista years ago for the Kichemaru site and it was always there so I went back searching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koplimek (talk • contribs) 12:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a striking image. It looks like it's copyrighted so it probably can't be used as an image directly in the article but it's worth adding to the external links. The original is probably not under copyrighted any more though - I wonder where it is Ha! (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly accepted. Thank you. --81.159.211.87 (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Formerly Alchemy12[reply]

Hey Ha! Thanks for the tagging work. I must confess I was mighty confused when I saw the above article tagged by you with {{db-imgcopyvio}}. If this wasn't just a mixup, please note that that tag is for an image file that has been uploaded in violation of someone's copyright. For text that violates copyrighted material, use {{db-copyvio}}. Cheers!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that'll be why I got confused when trying to add an URL to the tag. Thanks for the heads up. Ha! (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Ha, have you ever heard of a steamship called the S.S. Valencia? She was wrecked January 22 1906 off Canada. The famous phrase "Nearer My God to Thee" was allegedly sung by the passengers on this ship as they awaited rescue before dying and re-counted by passengers of Titanic remembering Valencia from newspaper articles. Here's a URL with some stats on this horrible disaster: [6]. Some Canadian filmmakers were supposed to be making a documentary on this tragedy. Maybe this is another ship/disaster that deserves a Wiki article. Koplimek (talk) 12:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there already is an article on it at SS Valencia. You seem to know a lot about steamships, I wonder if there are any more out there that are notable - perhaps we could collaborate on creating an article or two related to them? Ha! (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wow! thanks for that Ha. I didn't know an article existed here about the Valencia. I should've known though. It's been a while since I even checked Wiki about Valencia. Seems the article has been around since late 2006, a little over a year. I've always typed in "S.S. Valencia" or plain "Valencia" looking for a disambugation. But these two terms will yield nothing. Yes, shipwrecks are interesting, most people are familiar with the Titanic, Lusitania, Morro Castle, Andrea Doria. Those famous wrecks impels one to look at and search lesser known wrecks like Kiche Maru, Niagara, Corsican, Vestris. I wish someone would find the S.S. Waratah(1909) lost on maiden voyage I believe, without a trace. All of us(meaning us posters) are going to have to do some good searching to find info on Kichemaru ie photo. Everyone has to be patient. I believe info will start surfacing soon when we all look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koplimek (talk • contribs) 14:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. That Airnav article probably will be worth expanding, as it's on almost every airport article as a reference link. I cleaned up and tagged, let me know what you think - I could be wrong on this, but seems notable. Tan | 39 00:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll see if I can help expanding it. Ha! (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey Ha, I tried, am still trying to download the Prairie Public Radio broadcast about the SS Dakota you included in the references. It's not playing in Windows or Mozilla. If it's playing on your end please let me know how I can download the program. I love the Prairie Public Radio broadcasts even though they provide the transcript of what's actually being aired. To hear another one of their broadcasts that I uploaded a year or two ago, go to pioneer aviator Arch Hoxsey in the links section of his page. This particular pilot made the first airplane flight in the state in 1910. I'd love to hear some more of these, they are very educational. Thanks Ha. Koplimek (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ha I found that the Prairie Public radio program for February 6 2006(linked on my talk page) plays just fine. It the linked Prairie Public radio program for March 3 2006 in the SS Dakota reference section that doesn't play. Thanks once again. Koplimek (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, you're right, it doesn't play. I couldn't find the link you mentioned though. Ha! (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I have made a concept page for the Revision3 Shows article in my sandbox: User:Cyzor/Sandbox#Revision3_Shows. I think it's ready to go live, what do you think? Cyzor (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put the page up, if you want you can help me with expanding it and adding references.Cyzor (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your work in vandal patrol. Please be sure to sign your warnings by typing four tildes (~~~~) so admins looking at your warnings can easily tell when they were left relative to the user's edits. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the few I missed. Thanks for the heads up. Ha! (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is no - only two clubs claim to be professional out of 18 and no club manages an average attendance of over 800.[7] пﮟოьεԻ 57 07:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there has been a misunderstanding. Image:Yvo de Boer.jpg is from flickr. See here[8]

It has a CC Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

I don't understand why you are trying to delete it. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 18:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to delete it, hence the misunderstanding.

• Someone else (not me) placed a speedy deletion tag on it [9] because you didn't specify the precise source.
• I noticed the speedy deletion tag, found the original page the image was on at flickr, added the source to the Wikipedia image page and removed the speedy deletion tag, so your image wouldn't be deleted [10]
• I then copied the image from Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons [11] as it's a good idea (see bottom of Wikipedia upload page) to upload images onto Wikimedia Commons instead of Wikipedia, as Mangojuice suggested on your talk page in May last year [12].
• Then I added a tag to the Wikipedia image page to indicate that it's been copied to Wikimedia Commons.

Usually a bot would check that it's been copied and then delete the Wikpedia image so that the Commons one is used instead. In this case, while I uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons I also uploaded a higher resolution version from the Flickr page. As a result the bot couldn't verify that it's the same image. I've changed the one on Commons to the same bit for bit (identical) version that was on Wikipedia so the bot can recheck it. The net result will be that the image is on Wikimedia Commons instead of Wikipedia (and then I'll upload the higher resolution version) so that all Wikipedia projects can use it. Ha! (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My contributions to the african history subject is valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.211.187 (talk) 01:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not, they're racist vandalism [13] [14] [15] [16]. Ha! (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[17] Ha! (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I don't want to totally remove Pika62220's info, until I can decide just how much I want to reveal about myself on this thing! LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pika62221 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so you don't like the way I edit. Maybe I don't like your hair color? Who knows? I'm sure that unreferenced claims about someone who thought something might be true need a bit of editing. This is called "eventualism," and it's what Wikipedia does. I'm just trying to attract attention to things that are shyte. 98.215.82.114 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't refer to your IP's vandalism of Anal-oral_sex (diff [18]} as "nonconstructive", I called it "disruptive editing". Gary King referred to your IP's editing as "nonconstructive", when he gave it the 2nd warning for vandalism [19], after Elkman had given it the first. I don't like or dislike the way you edit (which isn't eventualism from what I can see) and my hair colour is really beautiful, you'd love it. Ha! (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, over Template:Foreign relations of Russia and Special:Contributions/Fsbi you may recognise many of these edit styles. Is there a need for sockpuppet report number 4? I'd do it myself, but can't get my head around the instructions at the moment. Any suggestions? --Россавиа ^Диалог 23:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry I wasn't around at the time. Looks like the problem was fixed though. Ha! (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:CNSA Logo.PNG. 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) 05:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I received your comment to me: "Your input may be useful at Talk:Adoption#Further_Reading_Section. Ha! (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)". I'd be glad to help out. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote some comments into the talk page for Adoption about "further reading". Also, thanks for your kind words. It's been a lot of writing for me for Wikipedia in these last years as you observed. I try to pick my entries carefully. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been protected and hopefully a mediation cabal should be getting involved in the frequent debate over what Christian Bale should be listed as in the lead line. Please air your views on the talk page. Thanks White43 (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already aired them, thanks. Apart from a couple of unrelated removals I've not edited the article so I'm not too fussed about it's protection level. You might find a WP:RfC more useful than mediation (you would need to summarise the discussion first though or it'll be too complicated to read and no one will comment) as the discussion would probably be helped more with broader opinions rather than a negotiation of the current ones. If you prefer to stick with mediation though, it might be worth leaving your initial tag as it was (i.e. stick with your first version of this [20]), otherwise you're excluding a substantial amount of relevant discussion. Ha! (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those links you provided are particularly useful, I think User:Promethean should take a good long read of them, because he appears to be ignoring all the advice. BTW - I only asked for semi-protection - but it appears to have been deemed that a higher protection level be placed. White43 (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to score points against another editor don't use me as a proxy to do so; either make your points on their talk page or pursue your WP:Wikiquette approach [21]. As mentioned, I don't edit the page so I'm not interested in it's protection level. You're trying to fight a battle and win rather than illuminate a problem and find the solution. Ha! (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thanking you for the links. That's all. White43 (talk) 10:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I should flag this for your attention: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oil Gone Easy. I skimmed your list of Zithan's articles and picked one to look at, and that seemed AfD material, so I did that. Disembrangler (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus on that article seems to be to keep it, although I think a meal is being made of the research; on close inspection it really amounts to just one study on the subject, one study on a different subject and a couple of minor references to it. Spraying the article with multiple references and further reading (some of which is literally just that one study presented at a different venue) to make it appear more notable than it is and then berating people that have a differing opinion seems to me to be an odd manner of investigation. On a side note, I think the Broncolor article references and it's notability could do with being looked at. Ha! (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thanked you at your RFC statement for developing User:Ha!/paid editing adverts. I should also tell you that I added a link to your statement at Jimbo's talk page. Thanks again! Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ha! (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for working on the 'paid content' issue. i saw your page linked off a slashdot comment and it really 'woke me up'. i had seen that stuff on elance before, but never 'put it together' in my mind how big a threat it could be, or that there was anything that could be done about it.

Thanks. It did occur to me that it wouldn't be too hard to find more examples like this. It'd be interesting to do a serious and thorough investigation of just how much paid editing is actually going on and, more importantly, what it's results are. Ha! (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your additions to User:Ha!/paid editing adverts which I thanked you for above: Do you know about linksearch? It is very fast and seems to be an exhaustive list of all external links containing the site (whereas a Google search only shows articles where the text of the URL appears). Problem: it is case sensitive. For example, here is a search for noclaimsdiscount.co.uk.

I don't think it's helpful here, but at WT:WikiProject Spam one would report spam with *{{LinkSummary|noclaimsdiscount.co.uk}} which renders as:

• noclaimsdiscount.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

One very minor item I noticed (but perhaps worth recording) is that GoodTherapy.org was deleted and in WP:Articles for deletion/GoodTherapy.org the keep comments were from User:Vpopescu and User:Cinagua. I wonder who created the article. We need a way to find similar articles where the title is essentially a URL. Johnuniq (talk) 05:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info about the links. It would have saved time as it instantly shows the 30 links that were commisioned. I think GoodTherapy.org was created by User:Vpopescu. His talk page is one of the Special:WhatLinksHere/GoodTherapy.org results because it has a bot-placed speedy deletion warning template on it for that article; the bot would only do that if he created it. Ha! (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Spam Barnstar
		For your efforts in identifying paid-for spam and promotional articles on Wikipedia. Laurent (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ha! (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you did re:Durova/Giano. I thought Off2riorob's striking was inappropriate, but I feel your complete redaction is quite well-done. Regards, Unitanode 01:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user is participating in the 2009 Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Say "no moar" to drama for five days.

Ha! (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

• T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
• WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
• WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
• WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
• WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you have another look at the deletion of Experimental pop music / Avant-pop please. As mentioned by one of the AfD's contributors on the nominator's talkpage [22], it isn't related to and doesn't really belong in an Afd for Power folk. Also, unlike Power Folk it was a substantial article that described it's subject in some detail and it could easily have been reliably sourced. Ha! (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question is answered in my FAQs. They're linked at the top of my talk page and in the editnotice. Why not check them out next time?

The nomination did make it clear that the discussion related to all three articles, and people didn't break out separate opinions for some of the articles, so I'm happy with this closure. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Stifle#Experimental pop music / Avant-pop

Thank you for pointing that out at Talk:Alford guilty plea to Redheylin (talk · contribs). Curious as to how you came by that talk page? Also, I responded to your comment, at the talk page. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had previously added a canvassing tag and suggestion to Talk:Sean Hannity#Hannity Waterboarding after reading a thread related to that page on a forum. That section was initiated by User:Cookiecaper, whose talk page I was reading while considering leaving a message on it. His talk page has a link to the ANI page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Canvassing violation by Cookiecaper in order to reach a false consensus and I noticed the Alford section on the ANI page when scanning it after reading Cookiecaper's section. Brumski (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. :) Cirt (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a post with a compromise suggestion, at the talk page. Cirt (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to you at Talk:Alford plea. I am very concerned by the edits that have taken place. Please see my request at [[23]] and note that tags have been removed by user at the Alford plea page and at North Carolina v. Alford claiming "article improved", whereas no changes have been made. I note your involvement stems from legal wikiwork and welcome it. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redheylin is now engaging in disruption with the re-adding of these tags despite failing to make his case and failing to present any sources to back up his argument. Cirt (talk) 13:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The matter is the subject of an ANI report, to which your input would be appreciated.[24] Redheylin (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brumski, I responded to your points, at Talk:Alford plea. I also made the matter a bit clearer, by breaking up a sentence in the article and moving cites to separate sentences. Cirt (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Alford_plea#What_the_sources_actually_say. Will keep the list together, there. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Do you think the tag added by Redheylin (talk · contribs) to this article and to the Supreme Court case article could be removed? I have taken both articles from an unsourced state to a state of currently having every-single-sentence in both articles cited to WP:RS sources. I do not think saying they "contradict" is appropriate, as one is about a case which is static, and the other is about a form of guilty plea the usage of which evolves separate from the conclusion of the case it was initially derived from. Cirt (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry to trouble you again, but even after the issue is resolved and the quality of the article was improved, Redheylin (talk · contribs) feels the need to inappropriately use the talk page at Talk:Alford plea - as his own personal forum to make unsupported claims and attacks. Perhaps you could give some input there as to whether that line of inquiry is appropriate? Cirt (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, that talk page is for improving the article rather than having an argument about other stuff and so I don't think it's a good idea for me to comment there further. My input was limited to what light the evidence (sources, diffs, the article etc.) shed on two particular issues: A) what the article name should be and B) whether the phrase "defendant admits that sufficient evidence exists" was appropriate to use at the time or whether it was an attempt to falsify the sources/was bogus/original research etc. A) is obviously settled and my interpretation of B) is still exactly the same as it was before [25] because the response to it [26] is incorrect: you were notified of the ANI thread at 01:25, 29 November 2009 and at that time the article contained the same six sources that I mentioned in the previous comment [27] and so your article text was a direct reflection of the sources. Those two particular issues are the limit of my opinion though, I'm not getting sucked into a wider argument as I don't think they're helpful. My advice is to walk away from the dipsute for a week - there's not much that can be gained from escalation and a lot that can be gained from calming things down. Brumski (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, now at User:Brumski/Law of Importance. -- Cirt (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it's not like I made the definition up, I just don't have access to the original reference. I'm not too bothered that other references have since come along to verify the meaning. -- Kendrick7^talk 11:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Threethenfour.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 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• 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) 18:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]