User talk:Zer0faults

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• /Archive 1: May 18, 2006 - June 21, 2006
• /Archive 2: June 22, 2006 - July 24, 2006
• /Archive 3: July 24, 2006 - August 20, 2006

Note to Posters

Do not restart discussions here, all discussions moved to archive are considered closed and will be ignored. Thank you for your cooperation. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Goodmusic.png removed from your user page

-- tariqabjotu 12:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Deja vu all over again

It's baaaaack! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous members of Mensa (2nd nomination) ... your 2¢ would be appreciated. --Dennette 16:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me, I have since given my opinion. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Strawpolls

On Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America you mentioned that you were going to set up some straw polls. I've taken the liberty of devising my own version, an I dea I had even before I read of your intentions. I'll only put them up if you don't object otherwise I'll defer to your version of straw polls and delete what I had written. Let me know. Thanks, Kalsermar 20:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not mind at all. I was a bit busy at work and did not get around to it, so feel free. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

War on Terrorism template

I take it your comment on my talk page was aimed at the user currently trying to change the template, not me?! I've advised the user to check the talk page already, he doesn't seem bothered. Budgiekiller 09:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 09:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably better if you use his talk page for discussions relating to him in the future as he won't necessarily be watching my talk page. Budgiekiller 09:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

War on Terrorism template

Why is it included in every terror incident or plot? The end is near 10:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats how templates work, they are included on the articles mentioned within them and related articles. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia more before mass edits as it seems you are a new user. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Many thanks. Will this guy never give it a rest? Good working with you. Budgiekiller 12:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of terrorism by the United States

I would like you to review your decision, everyone except Self-Described Seabhcán says the edit should take place and that he should have never made the edit being asked to be reverted in the first place. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 03:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right! Sorry. I've made the requeted edits. Self-Described Seabhcán (in my opinion) did not act properly. —Mets501 (talk) 04:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:PAIN

Rather than remove Mofomojo's comment on Iraq War yourself, perhaps a report to WP:PAIN is in order. Just include in the request that if they deem it a personal attack they also remove the comment from the talk page. WP:RPA is a tricky guideline and often creates more angst than it solves. --Bobblehead 19:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I edited out the curses, however you make a good point, if its readded I will just report it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza

This case has closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

To summarise, Añoranza is banned for one week and the principals in this matter are encouraged to enter into good faith negotiations regarding use of propagandistic operational codenames for which there are neutral alternative names in common use.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh, over two months after the case opened and almost two months after his last edit he is banned for a week. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Who is he now? Morton devonshire 07:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America

I asked for unprotection -- it's now free. Morton devonshire 03:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Lancet and statistic

Thanks for the note on my discussion page. Actually, I have no opinion on whether or not the substance of the material is a good idea to include in the article. I just reacted to what I saw as the stated reason for it being removed in the preceding edit, and it did not appear to be a good reason to remove the statement from the article. To me the statement that had been deleted from the article did not really appear to be "meaningless", and since I think Lancet is generally recognized as a high-quality source that is sufficiently worthy of appearing as a citation in Wikipedia, I went ahead and reverted. If the reason that was offered for removing the statistic had been different, I would not have reverted it. Also I was acting without knowledge of what others thought about the subject matter. Feel free to edit as you see appropriate. —Wookipedian 19:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

WOT

Oops. I missed that. Thanks for the explanation. I undid that change. --Bobblehead 20:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Tompkins Square Park Police Riot

Can you please point out to me where you find editorializing in this paragraph:

It was August 1988 when all the city beaches were awash in medical waste in a record heatwave that a riot broke out in Tompkins Square Park. The police attempted to enforce a newly-passed 1:00 a.m. curfew to end drunken streetpunk rock parties that had raged through the night, almost every night. Instead, bystanders, artists, residents, homeless people and political activists were caught up in the police action that took place August 6th. In an editorial entitled Yes, a Police Riot, The New York Times commended Commissioner Benjamin Ward and the New York Police Department for their candor in a report that made clear what images already confirmed for many citizens: the NYPD were responsible for inciting a riot.[1]

There is not one thing in there that is not a fact or observation from The New York Times. Not one. It reads cleaner, and gets the most information in as few words as possible. Please explain to me your reasons for changing it. Thank you. --DavidShankBone 17:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see the edit summary. Its written more like a newspaper article or book then an encyclopedia entry. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't tell me how it does that, you are just rephrasing a contention I disagree with. Please tell me how, or point me to a policy or style guide that I can learn from. Thanks. --DavidShankBone 17:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Your intro was rambling to be polite. The day is exluded, the event is suppose to be the first sentence and bolded, what you bolded was not even the article title name. The mentioning of medical waste is not relevant to the rest of the article, its simply attempting to paint an atmosphere which is more proper in an article or story then an encyclopedia. The emphasis put on the repetition on the "every night" mentioning is more in line with a story then even an article or encyclopedia. The intro needs more work as it seems to say that the targetted group was not there at all, stating "instead", however that is false even by the supplied sources. If it wasnt for the final sentence stating NYPD, you wouldnt even know the event took place in New York City. So I changed the introduction to be more informative and less editorializing. Again I like you writing style, however its not appropriate. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

They are right, the notice board is not the place for it. You could try the mediation that's in progress, or some other part of dispute resolution. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Plame

This needs to get out more. Edit section to get wiki version. I only know of Valerie Plame biography and Aluminum Tubes. It doesn't belong in the "Plame Affair" article since it's not related to uranium. I am not sure of any other articles.

David Corn of The Nation revealed that Plame worked for the CIA on determining the use of Aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq.^[1]. All CIA analysts prior to the Iraq invasion believed that Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear weapons and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge for nuclear enrichment. ^[2][3]

--Tbeatty 06:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

AN/I

Please be WP:CIVIL. Using the 'petulant children' comment to make a WP:POINT in this edit is both a policy violation and poor behavior. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, since its not uncivil to state someone is acting as they are acting, at least the user in question believes that. As for WP:POINT, its not disruption because the user does not believe its disruptive to talk frankyl and use such terms on that page in particular. Thank you for your comments though. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I ask you remove your warning thingy as the concensus on the page is that its not a WP:CIVIL violation and perfectly permissable when discussing editors in a frank manner, such a manner that is permitted on that page specifically. You can read the posts directly above mine to verify the communities opinions on the matter. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT warning #2. Please don't pee on me and tell me it's raining. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk page. Its not raining here btw, is it raining there? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Zerofaults, I have to side with Chairboy here. You see, the argument put forth is that it is not incivil for admins to say things like that. As you are not an admin your actions are not protected under that view... and 'on my side' even the admins aren't allowed to act that way. So please do stop. Regardless of whether we have an equitable system or a biased one it is not appropriate. --CBD 17:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Its ok, it was a WP:POINT violation done on purpose, but at least now if Chariboy says something uncivil I know I can issue him a WP:CIVIL warning as he does not believe frank talk is permitted on that page and finds thnigs like petulant child to be offensive. Also I cannot be given 2 warnings for a single posting. I would like one removed please. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove 'em both. The 'you cannot remove warnings' thing is heavily disputed and invalid in the opinion of many. You got the warning. You acknowledged it. You, apparently, aren't going to do it again (don't)... purpose of warning accomplished. --CBD 17:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct, I will not do it again, thank you. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikistalking

C'mon, wikistalking is pretty poor form. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF Please try to assume good faith in your fellow editors, actually you already said you don't so I am not sure what to even respond to at this point. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it fortuitous that you've just happened to end up on various pages I've edited, including User talk:Fact check where you put an editorial in response to my ID request. That, and you were editing Skinner Butte within a few minutes of an edit I did, and so on. This is just a polite request, I hope you'll take it in the spirit with which it was sent. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are requesting. Are you asking me not to edit pages on Oregon? Or am I just not allowed to add sources to material on Oregon? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Honestly I would think an admin would be happy about someone adding sources to an article they edited as well. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Harassment. I'll cite a few examples for your review: [1], [2], and [3]. I believe you are attempting (clumsily) to harass me because of our recent disagreements. I'd like to ask you again politely to stop. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Again I have improved two articles you paricipate on, I wouldnt call that harrassment, please stop threatening me and AGF. You are coming here making wild accusations and its disturbing and uncalled for. I ask you refer to another admin as you have shown a bias now coming here yet again to accuse me of things and are now stating yourself this issue of me improving articles you have edited is "harrassment" --User:Zer0faults 08:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we agree on this title?

• United States covert actions if you and Stone agree, I can ask the mediator to change the title today, and we can move on to more important issues. Travb (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree, makes for an article that contain lots of interesting content, removes allegations and seems encyclopedic. May get a bit large, but all together, nice work Travb. --User:Zer0faults 23:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank Lisa. Now if we can get Stone on board, I can request the mediator change the name ASAP. Appreciate your time ;-) Travb (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

How about this title?

Per your concern:

"Just so people are aware US Covert Operations would include domestic by its title, so it will include technically hundreds of articles COINTEL PRO etc FBI operations. It may end up being an article that then needs to be split up. --User:Zer0faults 03:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC) "

How about: United States international covert operations Signed: Travb (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That works perfectly, the other wording was not as clear as that. --User:Zer0faults 09:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am awaiting approval from Stone, then we can move forward. Nice to be on the same side. Best wishes and happy editing. Travb (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

17 State Street up for deletion

Hey, I followed some links and ended up at your user page, where I saw that you are a fan of the 17 State Street building. The article is currently up for deletion, so if you're interested, come opine! Zagalejo 23:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Zarqawi

The information roadmap was about propaganda in general that was used in Iraq bleeding over into the domestic audience, not any specific propaganda campaigns. This was a concern that was brought up in the Washington Post article about the Zarqawi propaganda program, so the two are related. I'm not saying there actually was a Zarqawi Psyop program (otherwise known as a propaganda campaign), but if they was, it would be covered under the roadmap.--Bobblehead 14:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Can I see your source stating it is covered under that Roadmap, and that the Roadmap was ever initiated into policy? --User:Zer0faults 14:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Also the roadmap was not about propaganda bleeding into the US, please read it, I have, in its entirety. While it speaks of a policy the roadmap itself makes clear that targetting civilians is against the rules. As per Synthesis of Published Material, its a violation of WP:OR to say:

Zarqawi PSYOP program is about a PSYOP program. Information Roadmap is about PSYOP programs, so Information Roadmap is about Zarqawi PSYOP Program, the Operations Roadmap mentioned Smith Mundt so Zarqawi is being linked to Smith Mundt. Smith-Mundt is about targetting domestic citizens so Zarqawi program must be targetting domestic citizens. Unfortunatly the Informations Roadmap specifically says dont target them, it also does not mention Zarqawi PSYOP Program. WaPo also says the program did not target US citizens. --User:Zer0faults 15:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You were right

Are you psychic or something dude? --Pussy Galore 23:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree!

If you don't mind, I'm putting the GTI picture on my page. Oh, and it says "Wolkswagen" a few times on the section. I'm not fixing it since I don't feel I have the right to. Cheers! The RSJ - ^SPEAK 03:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Fab Five Freddy.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Fab Five Freddy.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source 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. 18:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Fab Five Freddy

Not sure what kind of links you are expecting, the an is about 10+ years older then the picture now and as such finding a link to a press pack from so long ago would be quite difficult. --User:Zer0faults 18:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can't find any reference to the press pack it came from, how do you know for sure it comes from a prees pack? Where did you got this image from? --Abu Badali 18:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I got the image when I used to write for AllHipHop.Com, it was used to promote him appearing at the Smithsonian. --User:Zer0faults 18:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You found a free replacement for this unfree image! Great work!! Congratulations! I swear I tried to find a barnstar to award you, but there's none specific for this kind of action. This is a pitty. Your attitude was exemplar. --Abu Badali 19:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I been having such a horrible day here at Wikipedia, that actually went miles to cheer me up, so thank you as well. --User:Zer0faults 19:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Mccready is issued a 30 day community probation related to Pseudoscience articles

Hello

Based on the comments left on AN/I, I issued a 30 day topic ban to Mccready. (see Community probation log [4]) Discussion on talk pages is encouraged. Admins can enforce the ban if needed. Crosspost from AN:

Based on this discussion on AN/I [5] and the numerous comments on Mccready's talk page, Mccready (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is issued a 30 day ban from editing all articles related to the Pseudoscience. Mccready is encouraged to discuss his ideas on the talk pages of these articles. The the suggested sanction for disregarding the article ban is a 24 hour block with the block time adjusted up or down according to Mccready's response. Admins are encouraged to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of this article topic ban and make appropriate adjustments if needed. FloNight 23:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Further discussion about the ban or request for enforcement can be made at AN/I or AN. FloNight 00:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I just read and archived your comments. Travb (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Fab Five Freddy 2.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Fab Five Freddy 2.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source 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. 17:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Zer0faults is placed on Probation. He may be banned for an appropriate period of time from an article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing or edit warring. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults#Log of blocks and bans. For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 01:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Question

Is there any particular reason you've decided to log my uncharacteristic and unfortunate outburst for all posterity? Mackensen (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I see you're committed to an incomplete record; I suppose that's your prerogative. Nevertheless, I'd appreciate an answer to my question. Mackensen (talk) 03:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Its the start of a RfC I will be putting it back, deleting subpages that have negative information about you is quite unforutunate but will also go into the RfC I guess. Also please do not edit subpage simply because you do not like them. I went out of the way to make sure it didnt link to you so as to not disturb you as that was the arguement with subpages in kellymartins case of being disruptive. I will simply leave the information here now.

AN/I

• 21:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• 21:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• 03:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 03:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 03:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope you have a good day. --User:Zer0faults 10:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Mackensen didn't delete the page. He asked for a second opinion, and another Admin deleted it. [6]. Thatcher131 14:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that as soon as you said this Zerofaults went and changed his opinion on your RFA from support to oppose. How transparent and vindictive. --Cyde Weys 14:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he changed his vote before my remark above. Thatcher131 17:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 20:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by 66.213.90.2

After welcoming you to Wikipedia in May, I was checking back to see how things went. I saw the notice about your arbitration on the Signpost newsletter.

Since you're no longer new here, I don't know whether to (a) admire your ability to last as long as you did or (b) to think you're a fool to voluntarily take the increased stress resulting from your article editing choices. To tell the wikitruth, I had just observed Merecat get permabanned, allegedly as a Rex sockpuppet, only because he befriended Maggie. She got permabanned for having the bad luck to cross some heavy POV pushers when they were simply in a bad mood for other reasons. Ajdz left on his own accord; at least he and Merecat didn't suffer the stress that you and Maggie did.

Hmm, looking further at the Arbitration, you've moved on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zer0faults Zer0faults has abandoned that account and opened a new account NuclearUmpf (talk • contribs) [218]. Thatcher131 16:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll just put some final thoughts here, in case you check back. It's just as well, since I prefer to avoid anything that would end up an extended one-on-one conversation in Wikipedia; just the occasional injection of opinion by an outsider.

I really do not know what to think of Wikipedia. It's the messy house of obsessive-compulsize packrats yet with some interesting knick-knacks and the occassional valuable collectable. If you all would just admit you're a blog in a wiki format, instead of a reference encyclopedia, everyone could move along to just getting along, at a lower intensity level. The conflict, and stress and drama, is caused by the idealistic beliefs (about "truth" and wikitruthiness and POV vs selective facts and et cetera) clashing with the mix of realities. (Various realities exist by topic and/or by contributors set, for article quality, content, level of conflict, etc.)

The basic conflict is being able to see what Wikipedia IS versus what you each wish and hope it to be. If it can become thoses wishes and hopes, and how to get there, is an interesting question and why I check in occassionally to observe.

Sincerely, Just an Observer.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Iraq documents

Now that the official page seems to have been closed, do you have copies you'd like to share. Thanks. —Bromskloss 22:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conservative notice board

This is a new board for people interested in conservative issues, if you wish to join, just add yourself to Category:Conservative issues--RCT 20:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you but no, I am not a conservative. --NuclearZer0 21:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

PAGN and MAP

Merge? I would not oppose. --evrik ^(talk) 13:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I merged the gallery into PAGN and created the redirect. Thanks for your reply. The only other user who edited that article had not been on Wikipedia for some time. --NuclearZer0 14:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Next time I would add the propoer merge tags and let it wait for a day or two ... just in case ... BTW, check out this link. --evrik ^(talk) 14:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I guess I jumped the gun, seen only two people had edited the article. I am actually looking to build the MAP article next week possibly after I add more to the PAGN article, then I will remove the redirect I guess. --NuclearZer0 14:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Gunbound image 1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gunbound image 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)