User talk:Electric67

Speedy deletion nomination of National Security Law Brief

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on National Security Law Brief requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your hangon rationale

How can a magazine that has yet to publish its first issue meet our notability guidelines? By "claim of importance," in Wikipedia, we mean meeting one or more of the relevant notability guidelines. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although the journal's first issue is forthcoming, the print version is only one portion of the Brief. In addition to the brief, it produces a cited, daily blog that is reviewed by experts in the subject area. One of the guidelines is that the journal is "considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area." The NSLB has an Advisory Board that far exceeds this requirement. There are numerous other blogs listed on Wikipedia which produce no scholarly content nor print publications. Electric67 (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here, you are asserting that the paper employs people who are considered authoritative, but nothing about the paper itself meeting the requirement. As for your assertion that similar articles exist, such arguments are routinely ignored in deletion discussions. Lots of stuff fall through the cracks, and that's why such arguments are never welcome. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of National Security Law Brief

An article that you have been involved in editing, National Security Law Brief, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Security Law Brief. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electric67, I suspect this article will be deleted. I suggest you look into WP:USERFY to retain the work you've put into it, with an eye for re-creating it a year or so from now if and when it does meet notability requirements. TJRC (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Administrative Law Review.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Administrative Law Review.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, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, 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 created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 00:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —mono 00:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Administrative Law Review.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Administrative Law Review.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —mono 02:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Administrative Law Review.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Administrative Law Review.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]