Yakofujimato

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! If you need help feel free to drop a line at my talk page. :) --Actown ^e 06:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Ross alexander.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ross alexander.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors, which you appear to have violated at Cindy Sheehan. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! --Cyde↔Weys 01:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Crispus.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Crispus.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. 12:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Houseofreanimator3ii.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Houseofreanimator3ii.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 20:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Sheehanchavez.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sheehanchavez.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, then 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, then 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 {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags 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 criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Italiavivi 13:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Candice Michelle

Your edit to the Candice Michelle Image constitutes vandalism. Please refrain from doing it again. 75.82.3.135 02:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Kongedo.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Kongedo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

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 15:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kkedo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Kkedo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 15:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Kkedo.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Kongedo.jpg. The copy called Image:Kongedo.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 15:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Houseofreanimator3ii.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Houseofreanimator3ii.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Gotoprison1200.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Gotoprison1200.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Enhanjeannie.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Enhanjeannie.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Britney Spears

Hello. Thanks for your message on the matter of the title. I agree with you that "struggles" is an opinion. The title "Personal struggles" have been in place for almost a year now, that means most editors agrees with the title, or else they will make a suggestion for change in the talk page. Basically, what I'm saying is that there is an "unofficial consensus" that "struggles" is fitting for the title.

On the other hand, I disagree with you that "struggles" is melodramatic and unencyclopedic. The article recently passed Good Article while having "Personal struggles" as the title for that section. The article has undergone a recent Peer review, and none of the reviewers have a problem with the word "struggles" in that section. The article was recently nominated for Feature Article status, and none of the reviewers there have a problem with the word "struggle" in that section.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that under the guidelines of Wikipedia:Autobiography, Spears's own views about her recent publicity should not be considered for the article. So whether if she regard it as "difficulties" or "struggles" should not matter, and should not be considered for naming the section title.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. Nevertheless, thanks again for your concern. I think it's also a good idea to post this issue in Talk:Britney Spears, so other editors can help build a new consensus on this matter. Oidia (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, I have started the discussion in Britney Spears's talk page. Oidia (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello once again. Since there is no responses in the discussion page, I have requested a RFC on this matter. Oidia (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. There are 2 responses from a RFC on Britney's talk page. Both of them commented that "Personal struggles" is a slightly better title than "Personal difficulties". I am changing the section title back to struggles. Thanks. Oidia (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Race vs. Ethnic Group

Hi. Regarding your Jessica Alba edit, just out of curiosity, what is the distinction between a race and an ethnic group, and what source/basis do you use for this? Thanks.Nightscream (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Biologists have proven the existence of three distinct races Caucasoid (White), Negroid (black), and Mongoloid (Asian), many ethnic groups are a mixture of two or all three of these groups, but are not by themselves a separate race. There is no 'Hispanic', 'Arab', 'Jewish, or 'Celtic' race, though you often hear references to them.

Fair use rationale for Image:Bombface2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bombface2.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 10:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Ross alexander.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Ross alexander.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.

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 criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Haliday.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Haliday.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Advice...

I would strongly suggest you back off. This does not concern you at all, and if you do not keep your nose out of my business, then nasty things will come your way. Do yourself a favour and forget you ever even heard of me, and I will do the same for you... Tin Whistle Man (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's an indefinitely blocked user ... Kbthompson (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Alec Rowe

I have noticed that you have addressed the user 'Alec Rowe' several times in the recent past. I have just spent a great deal of time cleaning up, and essentially re-writing an article that Mr. Rowe had turned into an incoherent mess. The page was in shambles and consisted of rambling opinion, numerous misspellings, extensive grammatical errors, irrelevant information, complete non-sequiters, a 'by Alex Rowe' byline, odd sources cited, and his own copyright.

My question, and I do actually have one, is simple. Is there any Wikipedia protocol to remove such an editor?

I honestly do believe that this person is contributing in good faith, but given his atrocious writing skills, apparent rambling thought process and total lack of understanding of Wikipedia protocol, I feel that his contributions end up having the same effect of intentional vandalism.

Since you have dealt with this person in the past, I thought I would contact you in order to hear your opinion on this.

Thank you! (Yakofujimato (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC))

Hi, there's been no contribution since 9 February. I also assumed good-faith and tried to engage the editor; guiding them to an understanding of wikipedia. It's important not to WP:BITE - but equally not to allow damage to the encyclopaedia. Some people actually 'get it' quite quickly, and become careful and active contributors. In this case, it appears not. I did the best I could with the area I knew about and got Disgust at you deleting important knowledge about the 'Empire' Theatres of which Sir Oswald Stoll was a founder); for my pains. The worst thing to have to deal with is claimed 'secret knowledge' of 'unpublished facts' - trying to explain that can be tricky.

If the user comes back; and hasn't learned anything, then I would block them indefinitely - although if there was any evidence they'd actually read the FAQ, I might be persuaded to give them another chance. Otherwise, I think the only thing that can be done is to request help at WP:ANI. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 09:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Al Franken

Did you remove his infobox? I never placed it there and it had his information on it. Please place it back regardless. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I just wanted the infobox left in there as it made no sense to delete it when it never was added by any of us on that date. In a sense, it was an innoent victim of the reversion process. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Canadian

It's a violation of Wikipedia:No original research - specifically "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material". The policy page states that "you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented". The sources you cited don't "directly" support the information as it is presented, because they don't even mention the people involved (and if they don't mention them then they can't possibly be "directly related" to the topic of the article; rather, they are indirectly related). Since most of these people are living, it's probably also a violation of WP:BLP. All Hallow's (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)