User talk:Werieth: Difference between revisions
remove sandboxing |
MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) m Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 48h) to User talk:Werieth/201309. |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|archive = User talk:Werieth/%(year)d%(month)02d |
|archive = User talk:Werieth/%(year)d%(month)02d |
||
}} |
}} |
||
== deletion of unused image == |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Devil%27s_Pass_Key_-_1920.jpg Been handled]. Thank you. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<font color="blue">Schmidt,</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|<sup><small>Michael Q.</small></sup>]]'' 20:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== WP:AN/RFC == |
|||
Hi Werieth, I saw that the first couple of discussions you listed recently were from May and June, and didn't need to be closed, so I've removed the list. Please only add recent discussions that really do need uninvolved closure, or better still allow the participants to decide whether to ask for outside closure. Otherwise the page gets clogged up (and it's transcluded on WP:AN), which means that discussions that need to be closed formally, and perhaps urgently, are overlooked or delayed. If you feel that a discussion you find needs to be closed, you can always close it yourself rather than listing it. I hope this is okay with you. Many thanks, [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 21:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:I will be reverting your removal, I added those pages there for a reason, those discussions need to be closed. Please stop ignoring NFCR request for closes. [[User:Werieth|Werieth]] ([[User talk:Werieth#top|talk]]) 21:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Re: Orphaned non-free media (File:633 Building, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.jpg) == |
== Re: Orphaned non-free media (File:633 Building, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.jpg) == |
||
Revision as of 00:15, 3 October 2013
Re: Orphaned non-free media (File:633 Building, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.jpg)
That image can be deleted. Zonafan39 (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 20:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I need help with the article I am trying to write. I added the Company Logo and they said:
This file is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and allowed only under a claim of fair use per Wikipedia:Non-free content, but it is not used in any articles. Unless some reason to retain it is given, the image will be deleted after Tuesday, 1 October 2013. Please remove this template if a reason for keeping this image has been provided, or it is still used in articles. Administrators: delete this file after confirming it is not in use (be sure to check redirects to the file). Usage: {{di-orphaned fair use}} For non-replaced images: {{di-orphaned fair use}} Notify the uploader with: ==Orphaned non-free image File:Cuenca Cigars Logo.png==
Thanks for uploading File:Cuenca Cigars Logo.png. 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. Mcuenca2410 (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC) what do i need to do? Mcuenca2410 (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Mcuenca2410 (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am about to head out for a bit, it should be less than 2 but I will give you some help. Werieth (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Once Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cuenca Cigars is approved you can use the file in that article. I havent spent much time reviewing the article, but it needs a fairly major re-write, better sourcing and a more neutral tone. Right now it reads like a press release. I would also suggest using an infobox to make the article more uniform to similar articles. Werieth (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)