User talk:Yomangan

Hello, Yomangan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

Max Weber83 (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

Although I agree with you that the anon user was turning the Beagle page into a personal photo gallery of "Scout"... this picture is interesting: File:Beagle Scout 2.jpg... maybe it could be used to show "depigmentation" in Beagles... just an idea... it is quite common, but you never see many pictures of it. DMighton (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did consider swapping the Polish beagles for it, but it is out of focus and not a particularly good angle.

Yomangani^talk 17:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I noticed that too... maybe we could request from this user a more prolific shot of "Scout" to serve this purpose. DMighton (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that

I have reverted the anon's edit and have asked them to contact one of the two of us on our talk pages. I will also issue this on both their user talk page and their anon talk page. DMighton (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here. What are your thoughts? Thanks for any input; it's certainly a mystery to me. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you resolved it. My speed can't be relied on (unless it is the slow speed).

Yomangani^talk 09:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the clever Ratisse picture, by the way. (I wasn't sure if that included Dogriggr's outline. I thought I could see it, but then, I always see it. I also see half the face of a man with a mustache transparently overlaying The Burning of the Houses of Parliament, so what can you do.) Outriggr (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I wrote the above after you edited the image description, I must say that I did not see that edit. I mention this because we sometimes imagine motivations based on the circumstantial ordering of events in time. No, it was a happy coincidence that we both thought of Ratisse within a twenty-minute span. I hope Ratisse is notable, because that link will soon be painted blue, and I have AutoReviewer rights thanks to Ri----, which means my one-paragraph articles can't be interfered with nor deleted. Outriggr (talk) 02:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that is the face of God as he appears in his favourite "Pillar of Fire" outfit (though being that he's an Englishman, he'd have a moustache rather than some frightful Colonial hairy lip). I quite like Ratisse, I might do some more art mash-ups, I imagine myself carving out a new career as l'enfant terrible of cut and paste.

Yomangani^talk 09:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

May I intrude, only to suggest doing so under a separate persona? Little boxes,

Chesley Puzzlewitz (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Yomangani, Goya goy, are you able to do anything, in the long run and at your leisure, about the fact that we don't have an article on The disasters of war [1]? Just a friendly inquiry. Outriggr (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not, unless my lack of engagement prompted its creation.

Yomangani^talk 17:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Frankly, I saw an oppurtunity to work with you Yomagan, and I took it. I hope it turns out. Johnbod, Modernist, Outriggr, JNW and Mick Gold are working; this is a good thing. I cant think of brighter or more capapable editors. Ceoil (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slow poke! Well, if you're interested, there's a query from these boys on my talk to help out with the Spanish. I'll eventually get to it, but I have been ... ummmmmmmm ... otherwise engaged in drahmaz lately. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the magic of wiki Yomangan! The magic of me asking for an article! How about Los disparates then? Outriggr (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have this article listed in User:Yomangani/redlinks as a "possible article". I've taken the liberty of inferring that you might have some sources for the subject. See, I have a source saying that a certain sarcophagus found at this necropolis is the only known Punic wood carving still existing. The source looks okay, but it's a rather broad statement. Not difficult to believe, necessarily, but quite broad. I scoured for some other sources that might substantiate the claim, to no avail. That's not entirely strange, though, given the obscurity of the subject matter in general. To cut a long story short, do you by chance have any information on hand that might be of assistance? Thanks for any help. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten about that list. There were a few UNESCO World Heritage sites that shamefully didn't have articles which is why they were there. I haven't got any sources for the Lady of Kerkouane, but I recall the remains of a Punic ship are preserved in Malta, and the planks have marks painted and carved into them (not carved as art but carved nonetheless). She might be the only known Punic wooden statue though.

Yomangani^talk 15:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Yomangan, is there another link, or are there simply no detailed guidelines anywhere. I think the MoS full version needs to be updated on this matter too. Tony (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this right: the MoS used to have more detailed guidance, but gave up and removed it because of dissonance with these various corners of the project? If so, that's fine, but it would be nice to know. Tony (talk) 11:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution to the article. Would like to hear your suggestions more: preferably on the article talk, rather than the comments in the article. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is nominated for DYK. See Template_talk:Did_you_know#Nefertiti bust. If you want to add new hooks, please do so. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It caught my eye because we are constantly hearing rumours that all the important articles have already been written. I think you could pull some more useful information from the excellent German article.

Yomangani^talk 01:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't understand this edit summary. Care to elaborate? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Countering systemic bias" - why pick on poor old Slovakia?

Yomangani^talk 11:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

It wasn't specifically because it was Slovakia: it was that the article's inclusion criteria seemed quite contrived on first look. I see now that we're apparently quite fond of these, though. Given that most of them seem to be referenced to the same three sources, I'm rather skeptical that we really need one article per country, but that's a bigger matter. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And they exist on other-language wikis too. There is lots of almanac-style material here and it's perfectly fine. Here's looking at Yomangan on his next Darwinesque sea voyage to Comoros, where he will discover a species of canines that bark in a tonal language. He will name them Riggera yomanganii.[2] DOGRIGGR (deflea) 05:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found them already - they could only say "Snausages", but I still preferred them to those sniffy horse people who kept calling me "Yahoo".

Yomangani^talk 00:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

You've e-mail (sorry to keep you waiting). —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yomangan, Is FA Time Then? For Auld Time's Sake? Yo-"Fats"-mangani, Yes? DOGRIGGR (deflea) 23:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest.

Yomangani^talk 00:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Yo Mama, I think Dogriggr left the project, much missed. Why don't you FAC that handsome/gruesome article? Bishonen | talk 10:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Dogriggr should be aware we are not accepting resignations at this time. As for articles, I give carte blanche to anybody on anything on which I've left pawprints, but I don't see featured status helping much.

Yomangani^talk 01:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I thought this might interest you File:Facial symmetry in dogs.jpg - [3]...Modernist (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, and a HY to you too (Like the denizens of FFD I can't manage more than two letters to explain myself).

Yomangani^talk 14:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Foiled again. If you look at the history you'll see I was attempting a stealth deletion. I learned this method when one of my other images was deleted simply because it lacked any information in the "source" field. I learned from these machinations and applied them here--I know a thing or two about bureaucracy--but it didn't work... until it was really put up for deletion, and now we just don't know what will happen to the unencyclopedic Dogriggr and his

identical cousin Whiskeydog (I thought that would be a red link). Thank you to everyone however for helping to save Dogriggr's picture. He does need a little virtual TLC. Perdone nuestros pecados! DOGRIGGR (deflea) 01:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. I hadn't noticed. I'm still working on it. I will look at that soon. Regards Chienlit (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I think I wasted at least an hour or more referencing the duplicate section, but at least you saved me another hour or more. Thank you. As it was an almost pointless experiment I suppose it doesn't matter how long it took. It was still pointless. Chienlit (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for commenting on my edit summary (ass --> add) on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts! Saved me a bunch of trouble. Thanks! Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is more recent discussion than that. There's an argument for capitalizing standardized vernacular names, but not for things like "Marsupial Hyena"--that looks just plain silly to the lay reader, who is our primary audience.

We're also getting into a bunch of walled gardens, which isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia: rodents use sentence case, whales, capital case. Australian mammals capital case, Asian mammals sentence case. The lit varies between the two, but no ref uses capital case for one chapter, and sentence case for the next. kwami (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is more recent discussion among a handful of people. As you can see if you read my previous involvement in those discussions, I've no beef with any style provided you can get agreement from more than just a few editors (mostly I don't care). Tag teaming reversion from the style that an article has had for years isn't the way to go about it. And I should think that most lay readers don't care one way or the other either.

Yomangani^talk 00:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I just wasted half an hour on this and the phantom-dots workaround is not exactly elegant! I'm also worried that what looks reasonable in my browser will be unreadable for others. The other solution of course is to remove Petit-Goâve from the map. If we have to keep only one, it should probably be Léogâne: it's larger, it's closer to the epicenter and the whole arrondissement is named after it. Pichpich (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the best solution would be to have arrows (or lines) from the name of the cities to the location dots. This might exist since it's a pretty natural thing to use in a map but I just couldn't find anything in the location map documentation and I'm not sure which Wikipedian is most likely to know. Pichpich (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need Petit-Goâve shown as it is mentioned a few times in the article. I don't know who the generated map experts are- if I ever need one I draw my own and upload it.

Yomangani^talk 18:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

That image you sent does looks pretty good but the advantage of the location map template is that one can follow the wikilinks. Pichpich (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I can insert the the imagemap template in there. I'm logging off, but I'll try later unless you want to have a go now.

Yomangani^talk 18:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Stranger! I thought you'd left years ago. What happened to the terminal 'i'? Jasper33 (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poor old old Franz Reichelt indeed. I like the inclusion that not only people were measuring the hole, but that it was 15cm deep: hurrah for Wikipedia, repository for those crucial little nuggets. I do like trying to get the odd eccentric detail into articles, like K. A. C. Creswell leaving his library to the American University at Cairo on condition that the students didn't touch the books; Chester's taxi-fancying ways fitted the bill perfectly. I still wish I could find a ref to back up the Antenor's potato-hold pandas. One day ... Jasper33 (talk) 08:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... which would be today - a bit of judicious poking around in The Straits Times archive produced the evidence. I wonder what happened to the five. Good old Ruth Harkness gets a name check in the article too. And re-reading what I wrote a few years back about my panda hunt [4] I see I am inextricably drawn to inveterate taxi-takers. Weird. Jasper33 (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for resurrecting the dead link - I'd forgotten about the web archive. It's catching: panda madness on the front page right now, with some sort of fish-bear-musical instrument hybrid lurking in DYK ... Jasper33 (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having difficulty with a black painting's ref which mentions Sessions of the Juanta of the Royal Company of the Philipines. From Boime, who is there on google books. Who, what is Juanta? Its beyond me. Help pls. And sorry I had to get you involved in the unplesentness on FAC there. Ceoil. Ceoil ^sláinte 08:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling mistake was mine, would you believe; but I'm now having difficulty placing the (online) ref. Euf. Thanks for the nudge, I found it easy enough after you pointed in the right direction. I've been looking around a fair bit on the Dog, but am not uncovering a whole lot. Its disappointing, I would also like to do more with

Leocadia, but no luck yet, there is not a whole lot out there specifically dedicated to the Black paintings - an article that is just, well, shite, I suppose (sorry if you wrote it). In other news, rain forecasted, possible thundery. Wear a hat. Ceoil ^sláinte 01:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I went and stole from you.[5] Pehalps not very sporting; Im not sure. The dog and Saturn are serving as models - maybe a bit too much so.....Ceoil ^sláinte 00:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you deal with that issue? No patience ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Storm in a teacup, though Laika isn't even a breed, at best it's a type.

Yomangani^talk 00:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I like your attitude :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yomangan, could you have your Goya people inspect The Burial of the Sardine [surprisingly, not a Dali painting] in terms of fact-checking, context-checking (death, Spain, Catholicism, all that stuff), and potential for territorial expansion by those whose resources exceed l'il bits of the 'net. Gracias, jefe. Riggr Mortis (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added a smidgeon (and copied over the Spanish article on the ceremony), but it looks like most of the writers can't think of anything to say. I suppose it has some connection to the Caprichos of the Disasters and some of the figures are Black Painting-esque, but it looks like Goya was having a day off all the doom and gloom - it's a happier image but that nobody being bayoneted means there is less to say about it.

Yomangani^talk 12:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks and that's unfortunate. I liked the Licht quote (POV-wise). Beyond the two women it seems more sinister than happy... so you could inject some happy counter-POV if you like. It is good to have two articles on burying sardines (Dogriggr especially enjoys that), and that's with the Dali still to come. Hope you don't like my new name (I don't)--it's self-referential, like this sentence, suggesting the ultimate result of riggr. Logging in is for me like a Buddhist meditating on a corpse. That's more effective than password scrambling. Riggr Mortis (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally it's Ein Guter Artikel on the German Wikipedia so there must be something out there. Riggr Mortis (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No chance of any help from me with German.

Yomangani^talk 14:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Yo-man, could I get your opinion on this? I think it's very synth-y, but I could be wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For posterity - this will be good if I feel like a laugh

[6]. Mona Lisa not enigmatic unless backed up by a reliable source (Presumably only a quote from the High Enigmatist would suffice).

(Ha) One fine day, maybe, you will understand why adjectives have no place on Wikipedia. That would be monumental an occurrence. Riggr Mortis (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Your input is humbly requested
  Ling.Nut 05:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thought I'd mention this here rather than merely re-edit. If needed discuss on talk page FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some nice edits and cites there! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick request for an edit. You've added "Roth returned to the better quality manuscripts for his 1857 edition". can we say more here. What manuscripts? How were they considered "better"? (and possible, which sources were used before?). If you want to use the timing note on the talk page, go ahead. Also, if it's worth mention at all, more facts on the tunnel at Fucino - said to be 11 years work, 30,000 slaves/workers, and 3.5 miles long (though side shafts probably doubled the total length dug). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind interpreting "bocetos" (the section header) here? Thanks, Riggr Mortis (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Express service.

Yomangani^talk 01:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. Re "cartoons", yes, I think so (if I read your edit summary question correctly).[7] "Cartoons" and "comics" seem to have a broader meaning in French (bandes dessinées) and Spanish, historically or otherwise, than they do in contemporary English. Riggr Mortis (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was my question. It seems like a mistranslation because "cartones" looks like "cartoons" (but maybe that's where we got it from in the first place...it doesn't seem to have another obvious root).

Yomangani^talk 02:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I've thought of making Young Hare a few times over the years (this hung in my parents' basement as a child), but couldn't find anything to write about it. I suppose you Rhinoceros types could make an FA out of it. Was also surprised to see there's an article on Turf (for a long time, too!). Riggr Mortis (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I have a couple of books that mention it, but I'm so lazy about citations nowadays. There always my ruinous additions of course...

Yomangani^talk 22:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Wikipedia:Featured portal review/Disasters

Are you going to work on this portal? -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreiciate a pre-fac fiddle from you on

As long as that's understood. I have a

Yomangani^talk 23:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

This is my non thank you. You complete and utter bastard. Ceoil (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he couldn't have done it with you. No matter, I'll be FARring the thing in a few weeks for failing to consult Roger Morris (1961), Critical Interpretations of Van Der Weyden Portraiture: An Iconohistoriogleiphology. Riggr Mortis (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A policy on whether the long "s" should be exterminated is long overdue - it's the one thing that's really holding back the development of the encyclopaedia and it, more than anything else, is what is harming Wikipedia's reputation. This vital policy would also help the poor unfortunates who have selflessly dedicated themselves to

Thy miſſive in due courſe I read, and thought

of how we cleaned up for our pets. Alas,

to be unconſcious of a meſs is to

be primal, ſelfiſh, vain or ſucked. Riggr Mortis (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or nuclear robots orbiting from outer space as I suggested before. Ceoil (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yo-man, you passed your 40-word limit on that one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's too important an issue for me to restrict myself to an arbitrary word limit. I won't rest until this crisis is over. Goodnight.

Yomangani^talk 01:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Que duermas rico! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your copyediting of HiWWI! I have begun work on the comments you left in your sandbox, making tweaks to the actual article and leaving replies in the sandbox. I hope you don't mind the rather, um...colorful...formatting I used to make my replies stand out - if you'd like me to do something else I will, but this seemed to be the most obvious way to show what I'd done and what I hadn't. I've finished a few sections tonight, and will work on the rest tomorrow. There are a few things that I have questions on, and if you feel an issue has been resolved, I think the best way to signify that would be to just remove both your comment and my reply. It's up to you however! Thanks again - please let me know if I can ever return the favor, although my writing skills are obviously much poorer than yours :) Dana boomer (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I've stuck some and answered some of your queries in an attractive green. I'm surprised not to see this in the refs, I would have thought it would have been the book for the British part (but then again $125 for a couple of lines that you can probably get from elsewhere...)...As to favours, I believe Sandy is still after somebody to FAC her pet horse project (that is her preferred horse-related article, not a project on pet horses) after 3 years of trying. Why not join the illustrious group of editors who've turned it down?

Yomangani^talk 11:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I've moved on! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, TDO, I may start begging you to FA

labrador retriever! You must figure out if chocolates are really crazy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Poor old Barbaro. Chocolates are just exuberant: fact. And what does TDO mean? Temporary Detention Order? Team Disney Orlando? Taxi Driving Ostrich? None of these very sensible suggestions seem to make sense in context. Did you mean TAO?

Yomangani^talk 14:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

oopsie !! TAO :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)Hm, the Barbaro article looks interesting. I'll have to think about it :) As for the British book above, it's more a question of accessibility than anything else. Almost $90 even used on Amazon, and WorldCat saying no library in the US holds it... Honestly, the Brits are WAY overrepresented in the scholarship of this war - I could write an entire article on the horse use of just the Brits in WWI that is longer than the current one, based on the sources I and other editors have found. People write entire thesis on the British use of horses, while the poor Bulgarians get one little mention in the small text of a book on the top shelf of the back corner of the library... :) Thanks again for your continuing contributions, though, they are majorly helpful! Dana boomer (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! The article has definitely improved from your efforts, and for that I owe you a huge debt. Barbaro, here I come...at some point :) I plan to take this to FAC as soon as it has an image review and one dead linking source has been resolved, so it should be there within the next week or so. Thank you very much for your help! Dana boomer (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, just...wow. I bow down to your superior link finding abilities. Thank you SO much! Dana boomer (talk) 02:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at [email protected]. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Thanks for making a good template that I used on my user page! (talk) 69:69, 69 July 6969 (UTC) Charizardmewtwo (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rowett.png

Thanks for uploading

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in

section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

File source problem with File:Haiti earthquake map.png

Thank you for uploading File:Haiti earthquake map.png. 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 seven 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

image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Proposed deletion of File:Ratisse.jpg

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

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

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

deleted for any of several reasons

.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the

speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 06:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]