User talk:Mikeetc

This user may have left Wikipedia. Mikeetc has not edited Wikipedia since 2009. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Hi!

!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia.

Be bold in editing pages

. Here are some links that you might find useful:

• Try the
  Wikipedia:How to edit a page
  .
• To sign your posts (on
  talk pages, Articles for deletion
  page etc.) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
• You can experiment in the
  test area
  .
• You can get help at the Help Desk
• Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia:
  Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
• If you made IP edits before creating a user account, you can attribute your IP edits to your account at Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit.

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop a note at Wikipedia:New user log.

-- Utcursch | Talk to me

When you add coordinates, can you use {{

}}? That way the coordinates will be linked. You should also probably keep it on the same line. For example:

*[[Foothill Freeway]] - [[Interstate 210 (California)|I-210]] in San Dimas ({{coord|34|07|12|N|117|49|27|W|}}) produces

• I-210 in San Dimas (34°07′12″N 117°49′27″W / 34.12000°N 117.82417°W / 34.12000; -117.82417
  )

--SPUI (talk) 00:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the Eagle Talon contributions! I went back and re-integrated the text that you had deleted, however. Please review my edits (I don't really know these cars) and make sure they're accurate. If you like, you should join Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles and contribute more! Welcome! --SFoskett 15:52, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that you made rather significant changes to

]

Thank you for uploading

status is therefore unclear. Please add a tag to let us know its copyright status. (If you created/took the picture then you can use {{gfdl}} to release it under the ]

• All you have to do is enter "{{PD}}" onto the page. It is one of the many
  image copyright tags that we use to keep track of the copyright status of each image. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Santa Catalina Island, California

You've been adding some very nice images to various Southern California articles, including

(Marina del Rey, San Pedro, Long Beach, Newport Beach and Dana Point).

Also, you may be interested in the

]

You said that Apple Valley was unincorporated, but if you look at the town's official website and you'll see that the town was in fact was incorporated in 1988. --Moreau36; 1312, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Venturafreeway101134.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{

for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.feydey 03:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. It's ok to say that you created the image, but info is needed (since its a map) from which data (free, copyrighted etc.) it is compiled. Best, feydey 03:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Something like: "Underlying map (data) is (from) an aerial map obtained from the USGS [Http...]"? feydey 03:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The images are ok as long as you don't make screengrabs in commercial software etc. And give some sources of underlying data. I hope this helps. Image:Venturafreeway101134.jpg looks ok now. feydey 03:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could You add some source infos? Thanks. feydey 00:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:TROPIC OF CANCER021106.jpg listed for deletion

Image:TROPIC OF CAPRICORN021106.jpg listed for deletion

Image:ANTARCTIC CIRCLE 021106.jpg listed for deletion

Image:800px-DSC024320X.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,

Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion

. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you.

Studio system

Hi, Mikeetc. I understand your edit was made with the best intentions, but I'm afraid you did introduce a number of factual errors.

• According to your new wording, MGM was ranked first from 1931 through 1941, "with the exception of 1932." This is incorrect. "With the exception of 1932" refers to the discussion of RKO, as is grammatically clear in my original wording.
• According to your new wording, Fox was ranked second from 1931 through 1941 (with the possible exception of 1932--it's not clear from your phrasing). This is incorrect. As I correctly stated, "Fox was number two for most of MGM's reign"; in 1941, for instance, MGM was #1, Paramount #2, and Fox #3.
• According to your new wording, Paramount experienced "a decade of steady recovery" preceding 1942. This is blatantly incorrect. Not only is it incorrect, it stands in direct contradiction to your new (and, I'm afraid, infelicitously phrased) description of the studio "languish[ing] in decline during the 30s."
• According to your new wording, "Warner Bros. and RKO were regularly switching rankings at fourth and fifth." This is incorrect. As I correctly stated, with the exception of 1932, RKO "was next to last or (usually) last every year," meaning fourth or (usually) fifth among the Big Five. This implies, correctly, that Warners was usually fourth.

Addressing a few other points:

• I'm not sure exactly what you're asking in your parenthetical query "it is Warner BROS., isn't it?" Yes, the official name of the company is Warner Bros., not Warner Brothers. The standard shorter version is Warners, rather than Warner or Warner's. Please do a Google Book Search if you wish to confirm this with authoritative sources.
• I'm afraid you're simply wrong about capitalizing "Federal government" in running text--that's just bad style according to current standards. Please do a Google Web search with "federal government" and "New York Times" and/or "Washington Post" and a Google Book Search on "federal government" if you wish to confirm this with authoritative sources.
• The only thing unencyclopedic about "big time" is that, using it as a noun, I should not have hyphenated it. The online version of the standard
  Merriam-Webster's Dictionary gives as definition 2 of "big time": "the top rank of an activity or enterprise" (conduct search here
  ). It does not flag the term as "slang" or "colloquial." Definition 1 indicates the term's roots in the entertainment field (vaudeville, specifically), underscoring its appropriateness.

Best, Dan—DCGeist 01:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Saltonseamap.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{

for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on

]

Image copyright problem with Image:Glendora Curve 210,57.png

Thank you for uploading

.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 03:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,

]

File:Glendale freeway.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,

]

File:HOLLYWOOD FREEWAY.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,

]

File:INTERSTATE 605.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,

]

File:Interstate105.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,

]

File:State Route 55.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,

]

File:Pasadenafreeway.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered,

]

File source problem with File:Southerncaliforniainterstate15.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Southerncaliforniainterstate15.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the

]

File source problem with File:Venturafreeway101134.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Venturafreeway101134.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the

]

File:San bernardino freeway.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered,

]

File:Sandiegofreeway4055.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered,

]

File:Santa monica freeway.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered,

]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

]

Proposed deletion of Kellogg Interchange

The article Kellogg Interchange has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Another insignificant interchange. One of tens of thousands around the world. Well structured and written, but not notable. Searches did not turn up enough to show notability (about this interchange - there is one in another state which received some press).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Map of Southern California with the Inland Empire shaded.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned map.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:INTERSTATE 210.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned image. Without access to the uploader, we cannot confirm that they created the entire image. If they only highlighted (and possibly watermarked) the underlying map, then the license is insufficient.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  ★  Bigr Tex 02:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned image. Without access to the uploader, we cannot confirm that they created the entire image. If they only highlighted (and possibly watermarked) the underlying map, then the license is insufficient. If the underlying map can be shown to be freely licensed, then it could be transferred to Commons - but that only makes sense if we think someone will use it in the future. Some of these images site "source material is the Thomas Guide, MSN maps, and the California Department of Transportation"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  ★  Bigr Tex 02:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Alignmentinterstate215.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned image. Without access to the uploader, we cannot confirm that they created the entire image. If they only highlighted (and possibly watermarked) the underlying map, then the license is insufficient. If the underlying map can be shown to be freely licensed, then it could be transferred to Commons - but that only makes sense if we think someone will use it in the future. Some of these images site "source material is the Thomas Guide, MSN maps, and the California Department of Transportation"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  ★  Bigr Tex 02:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:State Route 57.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned image. Without access to the uploader, we cannot confirm that they created the entire image. If they only highlighted (and possibly watermarked) the underlying map, then the license is insufficient. If the underlying map can be shown to be freely licensed, then it could be transferred to Commons - but that only makes sense if we think someone will use it in the future. Some of these images site "source material is the Thomas Guide, MSN maps, and the California Department of Transportation"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  ★  Bigr Tex 02:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Riversidefreeway91215.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned image. Without access to the uploader, we cannot confirm that they created the entire image. If they only highlighted (and possibly watermarked) the underlying map, then the license is insufficient. If the underlying map can be shown to be freely licensed, then it could be transferred to Commons - but that only makes sense if we think someone will use it in the future. Some of these images site "source material is the Thomas Guide, MSN maps, and the California Department of Transportation"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  ★  Bigr Tex 02:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:INTERSTATE5.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned image. Without access to the uploader, we cannot confirm that they created the entire image. If they only highlighted (and possibly watermarked) the underlying map, then the license is insufficient. If the underlying map can be shown to be freely licensed, then it could be transferred to Commons - but that only makes sense if we think someone will use it in the future. Some of these images site "source material is the Thomas Guide, MSN maps, and the California Department of Transportation"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  ★  Bigr Tex 02:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:State Route 2.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned image. Without access to the uploader, we cannot confirm that they created the entire image. If they only highlighted (and possibly watermarked) the underlying map, then the license is insufficient. If the underlying map can be shown to be freely licensed, then it could be transferred to Commons - but that only makes sense if we think someone will use it in the future. Some of these images site "source material is the Thomas Guide, MSN maps, and the California Department of Transportation"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  ★  Bigr Tex 02:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:State Route 73.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned image. Without access to the uploader, we cannot confirm that they created the entire image. If they only highlighted (and possibly watermarked) the underlying map, then the license is insufficient. If the underlying map can be shown to be freely licensed, then it could be transferred to Commons - but that only makes sense if we think someone will use it in the future. Some of these images site "source material is the Thomas Guide, MSN maps, and the California Department of Transportation"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  ★  Bigr Tex 02:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Interstate10la.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned image. Without access to the uploader, we cannot confirm that they created the entire image. If they only highlighted (and possibly watermarked) the underlying map, then the license is insufficient. If the underlying map can be shown to be freely licensed, then it could be transferred to Commons - but that only makes sense if we think someone will use it in the future. Some of these images site "source material is the Thomas Guide, MSN maps, and the California Department of Transportation"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  ★  Bigr Tex 02:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Sandiegofreeway405version032006.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned image. Without access to the uploader, we cannot confirm that they created the entire image. If they only highlighted (and possibly watermarked) the underlying map, then the license is insufficient. If the underlying map can be shown to be freely licensed, then it could be transferred to Commons - but that only makes sense if we think someone will use it in the future. Some of these images site "source material is the Thomas Guide, MSN maps, and the California Department of Transportation"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  ★  Bigr Tex 02:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Pasadenafwy110version032406.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned image. Without access to the uploader, we cannot confirm that they created the entire image. If they only highlighted (and possibly watermarked) the underlying map, then the license is insufficient. If the underlying map can be shown to be freely licensed, then it could be transferred to Commons - but that only makes sense if we think someone will use it in the future. Some of these images site "source material is the Thomas Guide, MSN maps, and the California Department of Transportation"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  ★  Bigr Tex 02:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Glennanderson105version032506.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned image. Without access to the uploader, we cannot confirm that they created the entire image. If they only highlighted (and possibly watermarked) the underlying map, then the license is insufficient. If the underlying map can be shown to be freely licensed, then it could be transferred to Commons - but that only makes sense if we think someone will use it in the future. Some of these images site "source material is the Thomas Guide, MSN maps, and the California Department of Transportation"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  ★  Bigr Tex 02:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:INTERSTATE 210 08022007.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned image. Without access to the uploader, we cannot confirm that they created the entire image. If they only highlighted (and possibly watermarked) the underlying map, then the license is insufficient. If the underlying map can be shown to be freely licensed, then it could be transferred to Commons - but that only makes sense if we think someone will use it in the future. Some of these images site "source material is the Thomas Guide, MSN maps, and the California Department of Transportation"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  ★  Bigr Tex 02:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Sandiegofreeway4055v2.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned image. Without access to the uploader, we cannot confirm that they created the entire image. If they only highlighted (and possibly watermarked) the underlying map, then the license is insufficient. If the underlying map can be shown to be freely licensed, then it could be transferred to Commons - but that only makes sense if we think someone will use it in the future. Some of these images site "source material is the Thomas Guide, MSN maps, and the California Department of Transportation"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  ★  Bigr Tex 02:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]