User talk:Mbhskid520

Both El Salvador and Nicaragua use voseo as the primary form of speaking in Central America. Could you please let me know of your thoughts and what not to avoid an edit war on the picture. Thanks, House1090 (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. Salvadorian voseo is used, yes, by the media elite and citizens as a spoken form of communication. However, Salvadorians employ tuteo elements in their speech more frequently than Nicaraguans. For example, the word eres is used much more than the word sos, when conjigated with pronouns. (Due to this, tu is used instead of vos.) This therefore implies that the voseo pronoun is not as intense as it is in Nicaragua. Thanks! Mbhskid520 (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the Nicaraguan Diaspora played a role in the dialect's spread throughout the region. Secondly, no one said El Salvador is not a voseo country. I take it as you have not explored Central America completely. All countries in Central America use the voseo pronoun. The difference remains, however, in its active use in spoken and written forms. Third, geography goes against you. If you claim that El Salvador uses the voseo pronoun just as much as Nicaragua does, then Honduras would also have the same frequencies of use of the pronoun. Fourth, Salvadorians use the word equipaje and malleta, wheras Nicaraguans use the word valija. Valija is also used in the Rio de Plata region in South America; while equipaje and malleta are both common words used in tuteo speech. Due to the influence of the language in this region and its extremly close similarities with Rioplatense Spanish, it can be concluded that Nicaragua uses the voseo pronoun more frequently like the Rioplatense countries than does El Salvador. Mbhskid520 (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the source that states El Salvador's usage of voseo are the primary form of "language". Also voseo is used as the primary written form, this is evident in the pictures here in wikipedia, unlike in Honduras. Source: [1]. Thanks, House1090 (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen that source, too. But look at the bottom of the page where you have the chart. Look at endnotes 7 and 11:

[7] Alternan en el uso con las formas de tuteo cantaste, comiste, viviste.

[11] Alternan en el uso con las formas de tuteo cantes, comas, vivas.

Note the tuteo elements. You will notice that Nicaragua has no sidenote like the other countries of CA. Your thoughts? Mbhskid520 (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I noticed that after, but as a native Salvadoran I can tell you we use vos and never tu, so honestly I don't even know now. I am looking for sources but its hard to find, I do know that Nica's and Salva's use voseo the strongest in Central America. House1090 (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, remember that the map illustrates that El Salvador is a voseo country. No one says it isn't! The only difference is how the verbs are conjigated. That's why I said before that the Salvadorian conjigation had elements of tuteo conjigation instead of voseo. All of the CA countries minus Panama (and I guess you can say the same about Costa Rica) are voseo countries. El Salvador does use vos, but I think its more related with the other forms found in the countries with endnotes 7 and 11. I've been to El Salvador many times and Nicaragua, but I think the main focus of the voseo article was to illustrate the conjigations of the pronoun. Yeah, like you said, there aren't really any major sources for us because of Central America's history...war...dictatorship, etc. But I think that at the Royal Academy source is the biggest lead we have. We truly don't have anything else (we can debate about this, but we'd be talking on personal bias with unsourced material.) I think that the map's revision should be left alone (in terms of Nicaragua being dark blue with the other countries in the lighter blue) based on the conclusions we've come to. I'm trying to fly down to CA myself and bring back more info for this project...but we'll see how that goes. Your thoughts? Mbhskid520 (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voseo is the primary usage, and is used as evident here: [2] and in the wikipedia picture. Now dark blue means voseo used in written form and not just used for speaking purposes. I think it should stay as it is, for now at least. I am doing research in spanish so I think I am getting somewhere. Any thoughts or suggestions? House1090 (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article enforces what was written on the Royal Academy's views on the spoken and written forms of the voseo. Note the conjigations. Mbhskid520 (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not really on one source but multiple sources. I think if a user is able to provide evidence, that evens things out. No one source is superior to another. House1090 (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, we rely on multiple sources. However, sources are valued based on their peer review or their publication from a respected source. In this case, we're talking about the Spaniard Academy. They're part of the Association of Spanish Language Academies, which also includes the rest of Latin America's Spanish speaking countries. These organizations are the language regulators for the Spanish language.

We do not know when that was last updated. I don't want this to be something big I just want you to know that El Salvador is dark because voseo is used primarily and it used in the media as well, just like Nicaragua. I have Nicaraguan decedents on my father's side and I have been to both Nica. and Salv., there is no difference. Now if you go to Guatemala, Costa Rica, or Panama you will find that tuteo is predominant there. Honduras can go either way. I think at this point, we can only go with media and our natural instincts/views on what country is predominantly voseo or tuteo. Like I have said, I am looking for source mainly in spanish so I am not quitting yet, but when I made the picture I did it out of my knowledge of voseo in Central America. I would like to thank you for beeing involved and I know you want the best, but I ask for your cooperation and patience. Thanks, House1090 (talk) 06:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source indicates that the RAE published this in 2005. This data is relatively recent. In studies, we tend to use data spanning anywhere where data is relevant. In this case, 2005 is less than five years. There is no way (statistically and rationally speaking) that the region's language could change dynamically in 5 years. There has been no massive exodus out of any of the CA countries and there hasn't been a conflict displacing people so that the variants of the dialects could spread so quickly as you propose. If this were the mid to late 1900s, I would give you some credit, but you are providing a logical fallacy. Logically, the argument lacks solid common and academic sense. It took Italy centuries to refine its language, and Italian still exists with regional dialects. The link to the article you provided used both elements of the tuteo and voseo forms of the language. Please refer back to the actual source by the RAE and you will see that you have proven their point. Contrary to your assumption, tuteo is not dominant in GUA or CR. GUA uses the voseo as well, but in the same extent that Honduras and El Salvador do. The conjigations are mixed, thus re-enforcing the RAE's publication. CR uses vos, tu and usted (just like Colombians) in addressing relatively close friends or family, again reinforcing what was written on the RAE. The source you're looking for is already in front of you. The RAE works with the other 22 academies. The RAE publishes dictionaries and grammars. These are the people who craft the language. These are scholars who have their work peer-reviewed. Similar in structure and academic work like JSTOR, the articles published by RAE are the answer to the question you've been seeking. Thus, the RAE's publication with the scholars of the Spanish language, confirm that the conjigations of El Salvador are similar to the rest of CA and not Nicaragua's.Mbhskid520 (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is evident that El Salvador uses Voseo as the written form in the media, I have a source. The dark blue states that voseo is used as written and spoken form. Although I do agree Nicaragua might use voseo stronger than the other CA countries, its not the only one to use voseo as the written form in media. The wiki picture is prove of that and so is the Prensa grafica puplication I showed you. (PS: I have not seen any publications that use voseo in Nicaragua). House1090 (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you hit on something that we didn't think of before. Perhaps the identification variable is incorrect. Maybe instead of focusing on the fact that the dark blue illustrates both the written and spoken form, it should be changed to "countries where the use of voseo is intensive." That way, both sides are right. That way, we don't forget about the other CA countries who also use the vos pronoun (because forgetting about them is politically incorrect). I understand your argument a bit more fully now, and you are right in certain respects. Provided we change: "Dark blue: countries that use vos as the primary spoken and written form," we would have something like this:

• Guatemala: Sky Blue
• Honduras: Sky Blue
• El Salvador: Sky Blue
• Nicaragua: Dark Blue
• Costa Rica: Sky Blue
• Panama: Cyan

This way, we address the innacuracies of the article. We can also fix the small problem we have on the Mapa - Paises voseantes.png map.

As per your request, here are two examples of Nicaraguan voseo in written form:

• http://archivo.laprensa.com.ni/archivo/2002/diciembre/28/literaria/ensayos/ensayos-20021227-05.html

• http://www.arlindo-correia.com/040303.html

I think we're finally coming to a solution!Mbhskid520 (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that the way it's now? If not then I don't understand completely. I want to come to a solution. Thanks, House1090 (talk) 05:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, take a look at the edited version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CAspanish_Voseo_Analysis.png Mbhskid520 (talk) 06:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not completely true El Salvador does not combine tuteo as much as the other countries. What do you thin of adding another color like change Nicaragua to dark green, and keep the rest as if. Although I would like to keep it as its now. Nicaragua & El Salv. the same because there is only a minimal difference. House1090 (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per your article you cited as a source, please see below:

En este 2008 no solo tenés que renovar tu imagen, tus cuadernos y tu mochila. También tenés que hacerlo con el wallpaper de tu compu, pues ya basta de las imágenes y fotografías de siempre, esas que durante años has usado. Por eso, te vamos a contar que hay varios sitios especializados en la web que cuentan con infinidad de imágenes exclusivas para tu compu.

Tu is used in these instances to indicate posession, instead of the vos, which would go around like:..."renovar los imagenes, cuadernos y la mochila de vos."

The excessive use of tu in this case means that voseo is not used as frequently. In the articles I gave you, you will notice that there is no instance of tu expressed or stressed.

I think the color should stay the same. Green is like an "out of wack" color that would be out of place in the image.Mbhskid520 (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't say mochilla de vos, its a grammar error. Voseo uses tu because you can't say vos for everything. You will find the same thing in an article published in Argentina. Also take a look here: [3] There you will see that tuteo is isolated, and the country is totally voseo like Argentina. Note: it state Nicaragua also uses tu. House1090 (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you can. Unless I'm mistaken, such a phenomenon occurs in Chile. Voseo does not use tu. Go ahead and look at the article itself on the sources. The conjigations are replaced with vos. IE: "No sos vos, soy yo" (alternative: "No sois vos, soy yo.") IE: La mochilla tuya VS. La mochilla de vos. The pronoun is being replaced as indicated by the rule. The phenomenon occurs in the Napoletanean Italian dialect. (which explains why the Argentine voseo is the way it is). If you look closely, Nicaraguans use tu when addressing foreigners (foráneos means foreign). Therefore, the phenomenon is not common in daily speech among locals.

Also note on the Salvadorians:

"Los salvadoreños de vez en cuando (acaso para dirigirse a extranjeros) usan el pronombre “tú”; pero esto sucede como forma intermedia entre el “usted” y el “vos” así como los uruguayos"

In other words, Salvadorians use an influx of the three pronouns in addressing people. Which is probably the reason why the conjigation presented is interpreted as a "gramatical error."

As for the Wiki page, I strongly recommend you look at the page's history. The page has been edited by random IPs and no one has been mediating or questioning its uncited references that can be considered original research. However, the RAE is also listed on the very same page. The RAE has already covered the points I have argued for, as such. Mbhskid520 (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salvadorans use usted and voseo I would agree but not tu as the page says, its not common, like other CA countries (i.e. Guate, Hon., Panama, or even Costa Rica) Thats why I say keep the picture as it is or maybe even change Costa Rica to dark blue like Nica. and Salv. (P.S. Yes we know Nicaragua use's voseo the strongest, but so do Salv and C.R., per wiki books and examples.) We need to rely on multiple sources. Also you would not la Mochilla tuya either, its a grammatical error. House1090 (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research does not count as a source; and that includes the assumptions generated by using wikipedia and other internet sources that are not scholarly in nature.Mbhskid520 (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a newer version, which I just made other countries darker, since there is not much of a difference. Nicaragua is still the darkest. Its a compromise, I am willing to live by. Thanks, House1090 (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to know why did you change the picture, just wondering. I think it looked better because Nica., voseo is not much stronger than other countries. Thanks, House1090 (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday May 22nd, OpenPlans in Lower Manhattan Last: 03/21/2010 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday October 16th, Jefferson Market Library in Lower Manhattan Last: 05/22/2010 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I left a not on voseo on the Nicaragua talk page. Regards, y un abrazo. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have responded to you message on my page. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.

A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.

This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Colombia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

All countries have the HDI indicator on their pages. Colombia is no exception. Please do not assume that Wikipedia is a tourist promotion board hiding facts.

Please see subsection 3 of the Human Development Index and note that calculations are not the same as they were in previous years, in other words, you cannot assume that because the country has gone up in the index that overall equality has increased. This is not an example of vandalism and I highly suggest you use that word lightly around other wikipedia editors who are informed about the issue at hand.Mbhskid520

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index#High_human_development_.28developing_countries.29

The information is provided by the United Nations, not by me. Please observe the data and read carefully prior to reverting facts. (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Colombia, you may be blocked from editing. Please look at page 145 of the 2010 HDI report, which you would have known about had you read the discussion on Talk:Colombia before reflexively reintroducing false information to the article. Argyriou (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no disruptive editing in the process. You fail to acknowledge the different methodologies that are used to calculate HDI. The data sets are not comparable, please see subsection 2 and subsection 3 of Human Development Index. They cannot be comparable due to the different nature of the statistical and mathematical calculations. There is no random error on behalf of the unbiased UN indicator. If your issue is with the statistical calculations, I advise you consult the appropriate webpage at List of countries by Human Development Index. But as of now and as what's listed, the HDI indicator should be in a decreasing direction. Wikipedia articles cannot be contradicting one another. If there is one problem, it must be solved at the source. Please also be careful on using your vandalism templates, as you should be assuming good faith since I have been active with wikipedia well over five years.

To answer your question on your research:

Page 143 on the source listed on the wikipage:

Colombia 0.689 73.4 7.4 13.3 8,589 –3 0.732

-3 as per GHI-HDI indicated a downward trend in equality.

Regards, Mbhskid520 (talk) 08:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:100 Cordobas 2009 Back Nuevo.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I disagree with the image being tagged for deletion under the following premises:

1. There is no free equivalent.

2. Respect for commercial opportunities is observed. The content in question does not replace the original market value of the original copyrighted media. See http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

3. Minimal usage is observed. Both sides of the currency are illustrated since currency have both a front and a back. There are no repeats of these images by which have been licensed as such. Resolution is also low in order to avoid copyright infringement.

4. Previous publication has been noted, along with educational materials at: http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

5. Content meets general Wiki standards and is noteworthy since it regards a topic of interest and is, indeed, encyclopedic.

6. Media-specific policy. As per Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Non-free content, the image in question meets the criteria established by the pages.

7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article. (Which it was until it was deleted off the page.)

8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Purely decorative images are not appropriate.

The statement provided by Wikipedia speaks for itself, as the picture provides further understanding to the Nicaraguan cordoba article.

9. Restrictions on location. The image is only on display on the article and not on discussion pages or anything other than the article.

10. Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:

Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Multimedia. Yes

A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content. Yes

The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use. Yes

Thanks for uploading File:Nicaragua Cordoba Banknotes.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I disagree with the image being tagged for deletion under the following premises:

1. There is no free equivalent.

2. Respect for commercial opportunities is observed. The content in question does not replace the original market value of the original copyrighted media. See http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

3. Minimal usage is observed. Both sides of the currency are illustrated since currency have both a front and a back. There are no repeats of these images by which have been licensed as such. Resolution is also low in order to avoid copyright infringement.

4. Previous publication has been noted, along with educational materials at: http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

5. Content meets general Wiki standards and is noteworthy since it regards a topic of interest and is, indeed, encyclopedic.

6. Media-specific policy. As per Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Non-free content, the image in question meets the criteria established by the pages.

7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article. (Which it was until it was deleted off the page.)

8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Purely decorative images are not appropriate.

The statement provided by Wikipedia speaks for itself, as the picture provides further understanding to the Nicaraguan cordoba article.

9. Restrictions on location. The image is only on display on the article and not on discussion pages or anything other than the article.

10. Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:

Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Multimedia. Yes

A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content. Yes

The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use. Yes

Thanks for uploading File:Nicaragua Cordoba Coins.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I disagree with the image being tagged for deletion under the following premises:

1. There is no free equivalent.

2. Respect for commercial opportunities is observed. The content in question does not replace the original market value of the original copyrighted media. See http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

3. Minimal usage is observed. Both sides of the currency are illustrated since currency have both a front and a back. There are no repeats of these images by which have been licensed as such. Resolution is also low in order to avoid copyright infringement.

4. Previous publication has been noted, along with educational materials at: http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

5. Content meets general Wiki standards and is noteworthy since it regards a topic of interest and is, indeed, encyclopedic.

6. Media-specific policy. As per Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Non-free content, the image in question meets the criteria established by the pages.

7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article. (Which it was until it was deleted off the page.)

8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Purely decorative images are not appropriate.

The statement provided by Wikipedia speaks for itself, as the picture provides further understanding to the Nicaraguan cordoba article.

9. Restrictions on location. The image is only on display on the article and not on discussion pages or anything other than the article.

10. Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:

Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Multimedia. Yes

A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content. Yes

The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use. Yes

Thanks for uploading File:10 Cordobas 2009 Back Nuevo.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I disagree with the image being tagged for deletion under the following premises:

1. There is no free equivalent.

2. Respect for commercial opportunities is observed. The content in question does not replace the original market value of the original copyrighted media. See http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

3. Minimal usage is observed. Both sides of the currency are illustrated since currency have both a front and a back. There are no repeats of these images by which have been licensed as such. Resolution is also low in order to avoid copyright infringement.

4. Previous publication has been noted, along with educational materials at: http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

5. Content meets general Wiki standards and is noteworthy since it regards a topic of interest and is, indeed, encyclopedic.

6. Media-specific policy. As per Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Non-free content, the image in question meets the criteria established by the pages.

7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article. (Which it was until it was deleted off the page.)

8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Purely decorative images are not appropriate.

The statement provided by Wikipedia speaks for itself, as the picture provides further understanding to the Nicaraguan cordoba article.

9. Restrictions on location. The image is only on display on the article and not on discussion pages or anything other than the article.

10. Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:

Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Multimedia. Yes

A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content. Yes

The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use. Yes

Thanks for uploading File:10 Cordobas 2009 Front Nuevo.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I disagree with the image being tagged for deletion under the following premises:

1. There is no free equivalent.

2. Respect for commercial opportunities is observed. The content in question does not replace the original market value of the original copyrighted media. See http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

3. Minimal usage is observed. Both sides of the currency are illustrated since currency have both a front and a back. There are no repeats of these images by which have been licensed as such. Resolution is also low in order to avoid copyright infringement.

4. Previous publication has been noted, along with educational materials at: http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

5. Content meets general Wiki standards and is noteworthy since it regards a topic of interest and is, indeed, encyclopedic.

6. Media-specific policy. As per Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Non-free content, the image in question meets the criteria established by the pages.

7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article. (Which it was until it was deleted off the page.)

8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Purely decorative images are not appropriate.

The statement provided by Wikipedia speaks for itself, as the picture provides further understanding to the Nicaraguan cordoba article.

9. Restrictions on location. The image is only on display on the article and not on discussion pages or anything other than the article.

10. Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:

Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Multimedia. Yes

A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content. Yes

The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use. Yes

Thanks for uploading File:10 Cordobas Reg Cir Front.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 05:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I disagree with the image being tagged for deletion under the following premises:

1. There is no free equivalent.

2. Respect for commercial opportunities is observed. The content in question does not replace the original market value of the original copyrighted media. See http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

3. Minimal usage is observed. Both sides of the currency are illustrated since currency have both a front and a back. There are no repeats of these images by which have been licensed as such. Resolution is also low in order to avoid copyright infringement.

4. Previous publication has been noted, along with educational materials at: http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

5. Content meets general Wiki standards and is noteworthy since it regards a topic of interest and is, indeed, encyclopedic.

6. Media-specific policy. As per Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Non-free content, the image in question meets the criteria established by the pages.

7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article. (Which it was until it was deleted off the page.)

8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Purely decorative images are not appropriate.

The statement provided by Wikipedia speaks for itself, as the picture provides further understanding to the Nicaraguan cordoba article.

9. Restrictions on location. The image is only on display on the article and not on discussion pages or anything other than the article.

10. Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:

Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Multimedia. Yes

A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content. Yes

The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use. Yes

Thanks for uploading File:20 Cordobas Reg Cir Front.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 05:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I disagree with the image being tagged for deletion under the following premises:

1. There is no free equivalent.

2. Respect for commercial opportunities is observed. The content in question does not replace the original market value of the original copyrighted media. See http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

3. Minimal usage is observed. Both sides of the currency are illustrated since currency have both a front and a back. There are no repeats of these images by which have been licensed as such. Resolution is also low in order to avoid copyright infringement.

4. Previous publication has been noted, along with educational materials at: http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

5. Content meets general Wiki standards and is noteworthy since it regards a topic of interest and is, indeed, encyclopedic.

6. Media-specific policy. As per Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Non-free content, the image in question meets the criteria established by the pages.

7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article. (Which it was until it was deleted off the page.)

8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Purely decorative images are not appropriate.

The statement provided by Wikipedia speaks for itself, as the picture provides further understanding to the Nicaraguan cordoba article.

9. Restrictions on location. The image is only on display on the article and not on discussion pages or anything other than the article.

10. Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:

Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Multimedia. Yes

A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content. Yes

The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use. Yes

Thanks for uploading File:500 Cordobas Front da.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 05:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I disagree with the image being tagged for deletion under the following premises:

1. There is no free equivalent.

2. Respect for commercial opportunities is observed. The content in question does not replace the original market value of the original copyrighted media. See http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

3. Minimal usage is observed. Both sides of the currency are illustrated since currency have both a front and a back. There are no repeats of these images by which have been licensed as such. Resolution is also low in order to avoid copyright infringement.

4. Previous publication has been noted, along with educational materials at: http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

5. Content meets general Wiki standards and is noteworthy since it regards a topic of interest and is, indeed, encyclopedic.

6. Media-specific policy. As per Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Non-free content, the image in question meets the criteria established by the pages.

7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article. (Which it was until it was deleted off the page.)

8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Purely decorative images are not appropriate.

The statement provided by Wikipedia speaks for itself, as the picture provides further understanding to the Nicaraguan cordoba article.

9. Restrictions on location. The image is only on display on the article and not on discussion pages or anything other than the article.

10. Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:

Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Multimedia. Yes

A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content. Yes

The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use. Yes

Thanks for uploading File:100 Cordobas Front Reg Cir 2002.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 05:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I disagree with the image being tagged for deletion under the following premises:

1. There is no free equivalent.

2. Respect for commercial opportunities is observed. The content in question does not replace the original market value of the original copyrighted media. See http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

3. Minimal usage is observed. Both sides of the currency are illustrated since currency have both a front and a back. There are no repeats of these images by which have been licensed as such. Resolution is also low in order to avoid copyright infringement.

4. Previous publication has been noted, along with educational materials at: http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

5. Content meets general Wiki standards and is noteworthy since it regards a topic of interest and is, indeed, encyclopedic.

6. Media-specific policy. As per Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Non-free content, the image in question meets the criteria established by the pages.

7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article. (Which it was until it was deleted off the page.)

8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Purely decorative images are not appropriate.

The statement provided by Wikipedia speaks for itself, as the picture provides further understanding to the Nicaraguan cordoba article.

9. Restrictions on location. The image is only on display on the article and not on discussion pages or anything other than the article.

10. Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:

Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Multimedia. Yes

A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content. Yes

The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use. Yes

Thanks for uploading File:50 Cordobas Front 2002 Reg Cir.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 05:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I disagree with the image being tagged for deletion under the following premises:

1. There is no free equivalent.

2. Respect for commercial opportunities is observed. The content in question does not replace the original market value of the original copyrighted media. See http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

3. Minimal usage is observed. Both sides of the currency are illustrated since currency have both a front and a back. There are no repeats of these images by which have been licensed as such. Resolution is also low in order to avoid copyright infringement.

4. Previous publication has been noted, along with educational materials at: http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

5. Content meets general Wiki standards and is noteworthy since it regards a topic of interest and is, indeed, encyclopedic.

6. Media-specific policy. As per Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Non-free content, the image in question meets the criteria established by the pages.

7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article. (Which it was until it was deleted off the page.)

8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Purely decorative images are not appropriate.

The statement provided by Wikipedia speaks for itself, as the picture provides further understanding to the Nicaraguan cordoba article.

9. Restrictions on location. The image is only on display on the article and not on discussion pages or anything other than the article.

10. Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:

Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Multimedia. Yes

A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content. Yes

The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use. Yes

Thanks for uploading File:20 Cordobas 2009 Front Nuevo.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 05:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I disagree with the image being tagged for deletion under the following premises:

1. There is no free equivalent.

2. Respect for commercial opportunities is observed. The content in question does not replace the original market value of the original copyrighted media. See http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

3. Minimal usage is observed. Both sides of the currency are illustrated since currency have both a front and a back. There are no repeats of these images by which have been licensed as such. Resolution is also low in order to avoid copyright infringement.

4. Previous publication has been noted, along with educational materials at: http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

5. Content meets general Wiki standards and is noteworthy since it regards a topic of interest and is, indeed, encyclopedic.

6. Media-specific policy. As per Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Non-free content, the image in question meets the criteria established by the pages.

7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article. (Which it was until it was deleted off the page.)

8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Purely decorative images are not appropriate.

The statement provided by Wikipedia speaks for itself, as the picture provides further understanding to the Nicaraguan cordoba article.

9. Restrictions on location. The image is only on display on the article and not on discussion pages or anything other than the article.

10. Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:

Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Multimedia. Yes

A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content. Yes

The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use. Yes

Thanks for uploading File:20 Cordobas 2009 Back Nuevo.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 05:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I disagree with the image being tagged for deletion under the following premises:

1. There is no free equivalent.

2. Respect for commercial opportunities is observed. The content in question does not replace the original market value of the original copyrighted media. See http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

3. Minimal usage is observed. Both sides of the currency are illustrated since currency have both a front and a back. There are no repeats of these images by which have been licensed as such. Resolution is also low in order to avoid copyright infringement.

4. Previous publication has been noted, along with educational materials at: http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

5. Content meets general Wiki standards and is noteworthy since it regards a topic of interest and is, indeed, encyclopedic.

6. Media-specific policy. As per Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Non-free content, the image in question meets the criteria established by the pages.

7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article. (Which it was until it was deleted off the page.)

8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Purely decorative images are not appropriate.

The statement provided by Wikipedia speaks for itself, as the picture provides further understanding to the Nicaraguan cordoba article.

9. Restrictions on location. The image is only on display on the article and not on discussion pages or anything other than the article.

10. Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:

Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Multimedia. Yes

A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content. Yes

The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use. Yes

Thanks for uploading File:100 Cordobas 2009 Front Nuevo.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 05:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I disagree with the image being tagged for deletion under the following premises:

1. There is no free equivalent.

2. Respect for commercial opportunities is observed. The content in question does not replace the original market value of the original copyrighted media. See http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

3. Minimal usage is observed. Both sides of the currency are illustrated since currency have both a front and a back. There are no repeats of these images by which have been licensed as such. Resolution is also low in order to avoid copyright infringement.

4. Previous publication has been noted, along with educational materials at: http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

5. Content meets general Wiki standards and is noteworthy since it regards a topic of interest and is, indeed, encyclopedic.

6. Media-specific policy. As per Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Non-free content, the image in question meets the criteria established by the pages.

7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article. (Which it was until it was deleted off the page.)

8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Purely decorative images are not appropriate.

The statement provided by Wikipedia speaks for itself, as the picture provides further understanding to the Nicaraguan cordoba article.

9. Restrictions on location. The image is only on display on the article and not on discussion pages or anything other than the article.

10. Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:

Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Multimedia. Yes

A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content. Yes

The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use. Yes

Thanks for uploading File:200 Cordobas 2009 Front Nuevo.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 05:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I disagree with the image being tagged for deletion under the following premises:

1. There is no free equivalent.

2. Respect for commercial opportunities is observed. The content in question does not replace the original market value of the original copyrighted media. See http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

3. Minimal usage is observed. Both sides of the currency are illustrated since currency have both a front and a back. There are no repeats of these images by which have been licensed as such. Resolution is also low in order to avoid copyright infringement.

4. Previous publication has been noted, along with educational materials at: http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

5. Content meets general Wiki standards and is noteworthy since it regards a topic of interest and is, indeed, encyclopedic.

6. Media-specific policy. As per Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Non-free content, the image in question meets the criteria established by the pages.

7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article. (Which it was until it was deleted off the page.)

8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Purely decorative images are not appropriate.

The statement provided by Wikipedia speaks for itself, as the picture provides further understanding to the Nicaraguan cordoba article.

9. Restrictions on location. The image is only on display on the article and not on discussion pages or anything other than the article.

10. Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:

Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Multimedia. Yes

A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content. Yes

The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use. Yes

Thanks for uploading File:200 Cordobas 2009 Back Nuevo.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 05:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I disagree with the image being tagged for deletion under the following premises:

1. There is no free equivalent.

2. Respect for commercial opportunities is observed. The content in question does not replace the original market value of the original copyrighted media. See http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

3. Minimal usage is observed. Both sides of the currency are illustrated since currency have both a front and a back. There are no repeats of these images by which have been licensed as such. Resolution is also low in order to avoid copyright infringement.

4. Previous publication has been noted, along with educational materials at: http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

5. Content meets general Wiki standards and is noteworthy since it regards a topic of interest and is, indeed, encyclopedic.

6. Media-specific policy. As per Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Non-free content, the image in question meets the criteria established by the pages.

7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article. (Which it was until it was deleted off the page.)

8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Purely decorative images are not appropriate.

The statement provided by Wikipedia speaks for itself, as the picture provides further understanding to the Nicaraguan cordoba article.

9. Restrictions on location. The image is only on display on the article and not on discussion pages or anything other than the article.

10. Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:

Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Multimedia. Yes

A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content. Yes

The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use. Yes

Thanks for uploading File:100 Cordobas 2009 Back Nuevo.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 05:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I disagree with the image being tagged for deletion under the following premises:

1. There is no free equivalent.

2. Respect for commercial opportunities is observed. The content in question does not replace the original market value of the original copyrighted media. See http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

3. Minimal usage is observed. Both sides of the currency are illustrated since currency have both a front and a back. There are no repeats of these images by which have been licensed as such. Resolution is also low in order to avoid copyright infringement.

4. Previous publication has been noted, along with educational materials at: http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

5. Content meets general Wiki standards and is noteworthy since it regards a topic of interest and is, indeed, encyclopedic.

6. Media-specific policy. As per Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Non-free content, the image in question meets the criteria established by the pages.

7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article. (Which it was until it was deleted off the page.)

8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Purely decorative images are not appropriate.

The statement provided by Wikipedia speaks for itself, as the picture provides further understanding to the Nicaraguan cordoba article.

9. Restrictions on location. The image is only on display on the article and not on discussion pages or anything other than the article.

10. Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:

Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Multimedia. Yes

A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content. Yes

The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use. Yes

Thanks for uploading File:50 Cordobas 2009 Back Nuevo.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 06:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I disagree with the image being tagged for deletion under the following premises:

1. There is no free equivalent.

2. Respect for commercial opportunities is observed. The content in question does not replace the original market value of the original copyrighted media. See http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

3. Minimal usage is observed. Both sides of the currency are illustrated since currency have both a front and a back. There are no repeats of these images by which have been licensed as such. Resolution is also low in order to avoid copyright infringement.

4. Previous publication has been noted, along with educational materials at: http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1

5. Content meets general Wiki standards and is noteworthy since it regards a topic of interest and is, indeed, encyclopedic.

6. Media-specific policy. As per Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Non-free content, the image in question meets the criteria established by the pages.

7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article. (Which it was until it was deleted off the page.)

8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Purely decorative images are not appropriate.

The statement provided by Wikipedia speaks for itself, as the picture provides further understanding to the Nicaraguan cordoba article.

9. Restrictions on location. The image is only on display on the article and not on discussion pages or anything other than the article.

10. Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:

Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Multimedia. Yes

A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content. Yes

The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use. Yes

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Picture005interiorentrancembhs.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. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape (directions) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mbhskid520, and thank you for your work on the Nicaragua article. I can see that you have a great deal of enthusiasm for Nicaragua, which is a beautiful and fascinating place as well as the country of your ancestors. I also see that you have reverted many of my recent edits that represent many hours worth of careful and thoughtful work. I hope we can collaborate a bit here, as I am sure we both would like to see this article become an FA some day.

As I see it, there are a number of significant obstacles to this article's achievement of FA class. One of these problems is article length. As I indicated on the talk page prior to making my edits, "Country" articles currently listed as "FA" quality include Australia (45 kb of prose), Belarus (41 kb of prose), Belgium (39 kb of prose), Cameroon (33 kb of prose), Canada (43 kb of prose), Germany (50 kb of prose), India (47 kb of prose), Indonesia (33 kb of prose), Japan (39 kb of prose), Peru (17 kb of prose), and Turkey (45 kb of prose). The Nicaragua article is currently weighing in at 93 kb of prose. Now there is no law that specifically forbids an article to be this long, but longer is not always better....

For now, I would like to focus on the lead section. The article is now barely compliant with the Manual of Style guideline, as it now consists of only three paragraphs. This represents progress, I believe.

As I indicated in my edit summary, inline citations are not necessary in the lead section, except for extraordinary claims. Inline citations can be distracting, especially for the casual reader who is just trying to get an idea of what the article is about. The serious reader will delve deeper into the article and find the details s/he seeks, along with any necessary citations. This does not mean we cannot use inline citations in the lead. But at least if we feel they are necessary, they should be from reliable sources, and they should be properly formatted. All of the citations you restored when you reverted my edits fail to meet one or even both of these criteria, as shown below:

• 7.^ "The Federal Republic of Central America (1823–1840)". Latinamericanhistory.about.com. 2010-06-16. http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/historyofcentralamerica/a/09republicofCA.htm. Retrieved 2010-06-26.
• 8.^ "TED CASE: Nicaragua Canal Proposal". .american.edu. http://www1.american.edu/TED/nicanal.htm. Retrieved 2010-06-26.
• 9.^ An 'Eco-Canal' Across Nicaragua
• 10.^ Puerto Monkey Point
• 11.^ Companies from six countries interested in Monkey Point
• 12.^ Monkey Point Port Will Be Constructed
• 13.^ "The William Walker Saga". Centralamerica.com. http://centralamerica.com/cr/moon/mowalker.htm. Retrieved 2010-06-26.
• 14.^ "Filibustering with William Walker". Sfmuseum.org. http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist1/walker.html. Retrieved 2010-06-26.
• 15.^ "The United States and the Founding of the United Nations...". U.S. Department of State. October 2005. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/55407.htm. Retrieved 2007-05-09.
• 16.^ "Women in Leadership". Treasures of Wonderment. http://www.treasuresofwonderment.com/story/2010-04-03/women-leadership. Retrieved 2010-06-26.

For example, citation #15 is a dead/broken link, and #16 (aside from not being a reliable source) does not support the claim the Nicaragua is "...the first country in the Americas and in Latin American history to democratically elect a female head of state and the second country in the Western Hemisphere to do so, following Iceland's democratic election of Vigdís Finnbogadóttir."

So I ask you: do you really feel we need to have all these poorly sourced and poorly formatted inline citations in the lead?

Also, I have assigned tentative subjects to the paragraphs of the lead section, in the hope that this will help editors to try to group ideas and content into the appropriate place. What do you think of this idea?

Let's try to work together on this, and I am sure together we can improve this article. Thanks, DiverDave (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

While I understand your concerns in regards to in-line citations, I do believe that it is imperative for leads to have them regardless of their initial or perceived worth. While I do not invoke an argument of comparative worth (yes, I do agree that Nicaragua is indeed a very nice place), I do believe that it is necessary for any claims listed on a wikipedia article to have a source citation that indicates its validity. You are absolutely right, citations in the lead are not necessary. But in the process, we compromise the validity of the information we present, and therefore, reduce the credibility of any arguments/ideas that we have worked hard on putting up! We on the encyclopedia do not construct information. That would fall under the responsibility of those who have created the sources, namely those in academia or in the press. IE: the United States wikipedia page has citations in the lead that verify initial claims of the country. The way I see it (and have seen it for many years) is that the page is significantly more credible when there are sources that lead or link to any statement in question. Such claims are indeed the very reason why wikipedia is not significantly respected in academia.

I do certainly agree that the article is, in fact, long. However, there was a point where the article was well over 130 kb of prose. Certainly, it can be argued that the article is far from perfect, but the article has grown and matured significantly over the past few years. Additions to the article have been followed up with pages that lead to their own respective sub-topics rather than have it listed on the actual country page. It is important to note that certain topics were deleted previously because they were not deemed "encyclopedic." But that's a discourse for another time.

While I do understand your concerns in terms of citation validity, the reality is that we're talking about a country that doesn't have the resources to put up its own information. As inconvenient as it may sound, I fail to see where else such information can be obtained. The information is credible, as there are press releases. However, that also may fall under the generic definition of unacceptability depending on source location, place of publication, etc. etc.

In terms of citation number 16, the assumption of whomever listed that source is, in fact, correct. Looking at the List of elected or appointed female heads of state, the following observations are noted:

Isabel Martínez de Perón was not elected. She carried on the charge of state from her husband, Juan Perón who was a military officer in the Argentine military. She was not democratically elected.

Lidia Gueiler Tejada was an interim president, therefore, not elected democratically.

Vigdís Finnbogadóttir was elected democratically. Sshe was the first to be elected via democratic institutions.

Ertha Pascal-Trouillot was, like Tejada, an interim. Not elected democratically.

Violeta Chamorro was elected democratically.

In this order, were the heads of state of the Western hemisphere. Only 2 were elected via democratic institutions. Thus, the claim is valid even without the link.

"Also, I have assigned tentative subjects to the paragraphs of the lead section, in the hope that this will help editors to try to group ideas and content into the appropriate place. What do you think of this idea?"

I believe the idea is fine, but I believe you would agree in that there are many more things that require editing. Certain sections sound too touristy. IE: the mining section. It was not like this previously. The wikipedia page is not constructed to lure foreign investors. I will be looking at the mining section and deleting the "why Nicaragua" portions of the section. Granted, the information is awesome, but it has no place there. I think we should first condense the page, reduce the grammatical errors and move content to new pages. There used to be a bigger group that used to edit this page up, but it's slowed down as of late.Mbhskid520 (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Daniel Ortega Time Magazine Cover March 31 1986.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. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 09:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out, this guy Armbrust has a record : Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_August_23#File:GaddafionTimemagazine.jpg--Screwball23 talk 23:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here!--Pharos (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Ü, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. —Coroboy (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to the National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success! This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic·t 01:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] 1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited.

Wiki-Gangs of New York: April 21 at the New York Public Library

Join us for an an civic edit-a-thon, Wikipedia meet-up and instructional workshop that will be held this weekend on Saturday, April 21, at the New York Public Library Main Branch. Venue: Stephen A. Schwarzman Building (NYPL Main Branch), Margaret Liebman Berger Forum (Room 227). Directions: Fifth Avenue at 42nd Street. Time: 11 a.m. - 5 p.m. (drop-ins welcome at any time) The event's goal will be to improve Wikipedia articles and content related to the neighborhoods and history of New York City - No special wiki knowledge is required! Also, please RSVP!--Pharos (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!--Pharos (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!--Pharos (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:10 Cordobas Reg Cir Front.jpg. 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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:20 Cordobas Reg Cir Front.jpg. 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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:500 Cordobas Front da.jpg. 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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:100 Cordobas Front Reg Cir 2002.jpg. 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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:50 Cordobas Front 2002 Reg Cir.jpg. 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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:10 Cordobas 2009 Front Nuevo.jpg. 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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:10 Cordobas 2009 Back Nuevo.jpg. 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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:20 Cordobas 2009 Front Nuevo.jpg. 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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:20 Cordobas 2009 Back Nuevo.jpg. 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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:100 Cordobas 2009 Front Nuevo.jpg. 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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:100 Cordobas 2009 Back Nuevo.jpg. 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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:200 Cordobas 2009 Front Nuevo.jpg. 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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:200 Cordobas 2009 Back Nuevo.jpg. 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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:50 Cordobas 2009 Back Nuevo.jpg. 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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:500 Cordobas New Front 2010.jpg. 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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:500 Cordobas New Back 2010.jpg. 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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:50 Nicaragua Cordoba Commemorative Front.jpg. 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.