User talk:Fvlcrvm

{{helpme}} I created a talk page for "Actual Art". I created it about my article which was tagged for proposed deletion. The instructions about deletion of an article tell me that I need to delete the tag or remove the "Proposed for Deletion" box, after I have made the changes/additions to the article, in order to prevent deletion within 5 days. How do I do that? I have made the changes & objected to deletion. I asked for help on the talk page I created about the article but got a message that it wasn't my talk page, with a link to this page. So I am asking for help here. Fvlcrvm (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded at that page, here. Incidentally, I moved the article to Actual Art in order to remove the quotations from the title. This will both bring the article into compliance with our usual practices for article titles, and it will make the article easier to find via the Search function. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fvlcrvm! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Gazimoff 21:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

You might find the above helpful with working on your current article, as it contains starting points on almost everything you need to know. Having said that, if you do get a question feel free to use {{helpme}} again or drop by the helpdesk. Hope this helps, Gazimoff 21:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing the quotes, they were very annoying. Fvlcrvm (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am now adding photos to the article. I no longer see the "Proposed Deletion" box on the article. Is it still scheduled for deletion? Fvlcrvm (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion is one deletion mechanism, which basically means that if no-one objects after five days, the article may be deleted. There's a slightly different route for articles where someone does object to their deletion, which you can find out about in the deletion policy. At the moment, this article is not scheduled to be deleted. Hope this helps, Gazimoff 21:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Click on "show" on the right of the orange bar to open contents.

See WP:FA for model articles. Ty 00:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read up on the proper syntax for inline references:

text ^[1] text, reference gets autonumbered

I had rather hoped you'd understand the changes I was making to bring your edits into line, but you're now undoing them.

—PētersV (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

For the first time a reference appears, use <ref name="REFNAME">REFERENCE</ref>. After that, you can just use <ref name="REFNAME"/> each time you cite the same reference. --Ronz (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just figured that out & tried to undo most of the undo's. Thank you for your help & especially for the message. I didn't know there was a way to communicate with you. Believe me, I need all the help I can get. I'm just newly computer literate at 64. Signed Valerie Shakespeare, Fvlcrvm (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you're figuring it out. If you ask questions on article and user talk pages, you'll usually get a reply fairly quickly. As you've already learned, there are many more locations to get help, most of them much more specific to certain topics or resolving potential problems. --Ronz (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a referencing guide just above on this page! See the orange bar. Ty 03:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fvlcrvm. You're being discussed at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. You are welcome to join the discussion there and give your own opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point being that there's a confict of interest guideline here - see WP:COI - that generally advises editors against creating / directly editing articles on topics where they have a close personal/business connection. See the standard spiel below:

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images should not be uploaded with text on them, unless it's a poster or some such. Also images in articles need a caption. Ty 04:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! Someone rearranged the Holland Tunnel Wall images to make them horizontal! VERY NICE! I would love to know how you did that. I will try to add captions to the images; not actually sure how to do that. There were captions in Wikicommons, but they didn't make it, when I uploaded them. Their titles are in the text accompanying each one, but captions would be better. Fvlcrvm (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Fvlcrvm Gallery, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Fvlcrvm Gallery is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Fvlcrvm Gallery, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did put the tag {{hangon}} on the article, & the window appeared below the proposed deletion window.

I opened a talk page objecting to the deletion of the article & pointed out that the article COULD NOT be "blatant advertising" since the gallery has been CLOSED that is, NOT IN EXISTANCE for over six (6) years.

I also pointed out over a dozen EXISTING galleries that DO have articles in Wikipedia and stubs about EXISTNG galleries that are little more than a pointer to their ADVERTISING WEBSITES. (see Fvlcrvm Gallery Talk).

Absolutely NO discussion occurred. No one responded to my objections. I was given NO discussion at all. Orangemike(Talk|Contribs) just summarily deleted the article WITHOUT even READING it or paying any attention to the tag. Wikipedia has many articles about many galleries that include photos of work for sale; lists of arists they represent; & links to their promotional websites. Wikipedia has many more articles about galleries that no longer exist, to put in historical context, what the gallery was & did. THIS article was the LATTER.Fvlcrvm (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you have a case for appealing the deletion of this article. You can submit a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I note that if restored, the article should probably be moved to Fulcrum Gallery since the media coverage I can find uses vowels in the gallery name. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Following the Wikipedia suggestions, I first appealed to OrangeMike, on his talk page, to revert the deletion. I have respect for his opinions, & he states that his inclination is to delete, rather than include, (his talk page is a constant stream of objections; how to stop/report him). But I think he did not read the article. I suspect he noticed the user name, (fvlcrvm) & the article name & jumped to the conclusion that it was self-advertising, (which I told him).

I will give it time to get resolved with OrangeMike. If it is not, I will take your advice & appeal. Thanks, again. Fvlcrvm (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about we compromise by my restoring the article into a sandbox in your userspace, so that you can work on it, especially in providing better evidence of notability (and I agree about the "Roman U" thing; that may be part of your problem in finding sources, if it was ignored). Your username, however, is going to set off alarm bells in most editors' minds when you edit an article on this topic! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I would appreciate that. Could you please tell me how I would get to the sandbox? I am new to this, (& only barely computer literate at 64). I will take your advice about the U's but the name with V's will have to be a redirect to it, since most of the artworld would look for it that way. I know another artist who used exhibit there. I will ask them to add to the article, too. Thanks again. Fvlcrvm (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeMike, I don't know if the Fvlcrvm article has been reverted to a sandbox yet, because I don't know how to find a sandbox or even to check if one exists. Please, help me find the sandbox you put it in (if you've had time to do that yet). Thanks, Fvlcrvm (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find it at User:Fvlcrvm/Fulcrum Gallery. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:GalleryShowsCollage.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. 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. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 00:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note a user name is only allowed to be used by one person. Each person should have their own unique user name. See Wikipedia:Sock#.27Role.27_accounts. If this is not the case, please sort it out immediately to avoid any repercussions. Ty 14:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate what you mean but the user name Fvlcrvm is actully used only by me, Valerie Monroe Shakespeare, since Tery has a problem using a computer for any length of time due to a palsey tremor in his hands. The only time he writes a message is when my right to upload & use his images is questioned. We have been married for 45 years & never think like other people, in terms of separate ownership. I took the photos of Tery. He took the photos of me. We both took the photos of the art. "Entirely my own work" applies to all of them. Tery has never used the name to write in Wikipedia or to upload any images. He used the name twice to respond to the question of redirecting the correct spelling of his name to the article on him, (resolved) & now to the question of my right to upload the images, (which I hope to resolve now). I hope this adequately responds to the issue.Fvlcrvm (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood your earlier post and thought VMS was someone else. However, Tery should create a separate account if he wants to leave any messages, not use yours. To avoid accusations of sockpuppetry it would be advisable to make a note on your user page of the fact you use the same computer as him (and name his account) and vice versa.

I suggest you email "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org" and ask them to give you an OTRS ticket to confirm that you are the official agent for VMS, fulcrum gallery and Tery Fugate-Wilcox, and are entitled to release their copyright as GFDL. Give the URL of the relevant web site(s). You may be asked for proof of ID, but once you've got the system set up, you won't have a problem. See User:VAwebteam and talk page. Ty 22:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use is very limited and strict on wikipedia and images often get deleted, when they are uploaded as such, if it is felt they exceed the limitations. Ty 09:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK one person pretending to be two different people using different identities. Ty 15:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I never heard of that before. Fvlcrvm (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I've raised Fulcrum Gallery etc at the conflict of interest noticeboard - see WP:COIN#Fulcrum Gallery etc. You were given unusual leeway to directly edit articles, but just having made a start at cleanup - especially seeing the new material coming straight from an unpublished memoir - I'm not at all comfortable about the COI angle. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only new material I remember adding was about how the defunct gallery came to be named Fulcrum, & that was because I found the explanation in a magazine article, which I referenced. Since there was so much confusion, in the beginning, about the name, I thought the quotes from that article would be useful. BTW, how do I get to the COI Noticeboard? There was a link, before, & I made it a favorite, so I could respond to issues, but when the issue was resolved, I deleted it & now I don't know how to get back there. I thought what was in brackets above was a link but I can't make it work.Fvlcrvm (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I found it.Fvlcrvm (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, re It's the Artist's Life for me!, we can't use an unpublished memoir as a source. Wikipedia:Verifiability is very clear that The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of 39 references, not one of them is the "unpublished memoir". That was in as a link, only because it has some interesting info about what it was like to run an art gallery during that era. All of the references are real, verifiable sources. In fact, most of the material was added, because new, reliable sources came to light, through Google.Fvlcrvm (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of 39 references, not one of them is the "unpublished memoir".

But some of them are! For instance, currents refs 1, 4, 11 and 12 in the TF-W article, such as:

In 1976, they combined with a group of artists, tired of fixing up illegal lofts only to have the landlord double the rent. They bought an old warehouse building on Worth Street, in what would enventually become Tribeca, and created the ultimate studio loft: (5000 square feet, 18 foot ceiling, 2500 square foot terrace and private garage).</ref><ref>[It's the Artist's Life for me!]</ref>

What's the function there? These <nowiki^[1]</nowiki> tags are supposed to be citations to published material that the reader can use to verify the accompanying statement in the article. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2008

I was referring to Fulcrum. TFW's article is another matter. It was not a controversial statement or an opinion, just an interesting fact, for people who dont know what the early art scene was like in NYC. I guess i didn't think verification was that important. I suppose I could find an article about the illegal loft situation in the '70's. There certainly were a lot of them but, of course they had no computers then.Fvlcrvm (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC) I'll take out the stuff about the loft.Fvlcrvm (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for filling in those references. It'd help, however, if you didn't break existing references in the process: the simpler it is to verify, the better, and if there are reliable online sources, no reason to go to older offline ones or remove useful links, such as the Google Books link for "Six Years: The Dematerialization of the Art Object from 1966 to 1972". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to do that. I'm not as computer literate as I wish. I also took out the link for the memoirs, but reference #25 was not mine. It was "retrieved" by someone else, but it didn't work. So I have been trying to fix it, but no luck so far. Links are a bit of a weak point with me. They are mostly magic.Fvlcrvm (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, both the gallery & Fugate-Wilcox got enormous amounts of press. Nearly every event was covered. So, I have searched the bibliographies for more concise & accurate references. It is very labor-intensive. I guess I was just being lazy.

Can you put the online source back? I don't know where it came from, but will try to find it, if you can't.Fvlcrvm (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found it:

Google Books Lucy Lippard’s book

but now I can't remember where it was! Fvlcrvm (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've been very polite about this, but which it of WP:COI do you not understand?

How to avoid COI edits

Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when:

1. Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with

You should not be directly editing articles about your husband or your gallery!

I've reverted recent edits. Tell us, per WP:COI, on the associated Talk pages and let others make the changes if they think them appropriate. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edits I made to the gallery last, was to add a citation, where the tags "needs citation" was inserted. It would be absurd for me to ask someone else to add the citation. I would have to tell them where the quote came from & provide the appropriate article for them to reference. Wouldn't that be tantamount to "sockpuppetry" to have someone else put the citation in, just so my call name would not appear? I'm sorry, but what you are asking me to do, seems dishonest.Fvlcrvm (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I have read every article & guideline about editing articles about or related to oneself, & have been very careful to keep the information added as encyclopedic as I possibly can. There is no rule or guideline anywhere, that I found, that forbids one to add information, images or correct such articles, as long as one avoids opinions & does not promote a point of view, especially about controversial topics. I have scrupulously avoided any COI problems. I was warned that my callname would continue to "raise eyebrows", have accepted that fact & have remained steadfastly honest about who I am.Fvlcrvm (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for putting the Google Book reference back. I was going to try to do it but really appreciate you doing that for me. Please do not delete the edits I made today. There was no COI involved... only specifying the references where requested or adding a citation where the tag said "Citation needed". The COI guidelines say to use common sense. That should apply to deletions as well. I do appreciate your help.Fvlcrvm (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Fulcrum Gallery, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please do not continue to add material that clearly relates to you personally. Such edits are hardly neutral and reflect a difficult conflict of interest because they appear to be vanity edits. --VS ^talk 07:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GalleryShowsCollage.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Actual Art, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://actualartfoundation.web.officelive.com/aboutus.aspx, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Actual Art and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Actual Art, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Actual Art with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Actual Art. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Actual Art saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Dweller (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Supper-collage.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. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Attention-me-09.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. Cloudbound (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:STUDIO.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MGM-13 Mace missile nosecones in Battery Park (Terry Fugate-Wilcox art project, 1972).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:40, 29 September 2015 (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) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Redspot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. 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. czar 00:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Dugrenier-disc.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:WarpingWood.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned image, no context to determine possible future encyclopedic use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 09:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:ARCH-no-art.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. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:First-sculp.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, low-res, no obvious use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you are the copyright holder for 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 [email protected], 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 {{permission 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 [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} 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. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 15:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]