User talk:Jer10 95/Archive 3

IfD discusions

Hi. You are receiving this message because you participated in the IfD discusion for either Image:42650801_planelong_ap416.jpg, Image:Adam_Air_Flight_172.jpg, or both. I felt you might be interested in participating in the discusion regarding two similar images that have recently been nominted for deletion, here and here. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Soyuztma10patch.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Soyuztma10patch.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands 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:

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. 06:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

akatz93

I was blammed for vandalizing something i did not do. On the United Airlines page. I was trying to upload some pictures but couldn't figure out how to. u guys should think before tell someone they vandalized something.

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Jer10 95! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vandal

oi, you really pissed off a guy today :-) 10 vandalisms in 11.38 minutes :-) cheers, West Brom 4ever 00:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Danielson

Please check the edit history of the page, this article has been stubbed by an administator. Please revert your edit. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma Phi Beta

Hey I noticed that you reverted a legitimate response that I left on the Gamma Phi Beta talk page for another user. [1] I'm sure it was an accident, but I thought I would just let you know anyway. I have reverted your revert to reinstate my comment. --ImmortalGoddezz 02:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Talk Lmcelhiney

Hi,

Just curious why you might have reverted edits that I was making to my own User page with VP?

Thanks for responding.

Take care,

Larry --Lmcelhiney 02:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that you have not see this message? Or should I just assume that you have chosen not to reply? Please, I await your earliest convenience. Thanks! --Lmcelhiney 16:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Times Square popular culture section

I removed the Times Square popular section, because I felt that it had become an indiscriminate collection of information, which Wikipedia is not. You then reverted my edit, perhaps thinking it vandalism. I would appreciate it if you made an argument for your actions on the Times Square Talk page. I fail to see the noteability of the items in the popular culture section. For example, that a few Friends episodes took place there, how is that relevant to Times Square? Or that scenes in videogames take place there? The single point that I do feel carry some noteability, the "Dick Clark's New Year's Rockin' Eve"-reference, is already included in the "New Year's Eve in Times Square" section of the article.

As the article mentions, the "The Times Square neighborhood, notably its busiest intersection, has been featured countless times in literature, on television, and in films." Do you feel that all these countless references be listed in this section of the article? Clearly, a list of "countless" items is unmanageable. Dr bab 03:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User box creator with template

I noticed you made a userbox here are two useful userbox creators you might be interested in

Userbox Creator with template - designed to easily generate Userboxes and has builtin template.
Userbox Creator with template has religious image database - designed to easily generate Religious Userboxes and has builtin template.

Java7837 20:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Talk Lmcelhiney

Hi there Jer10 95, you've used to the "If you want to contact me, please leave a message on my talk page" code on your user page that I created but it seems you didn't realise you would need to change the link to go to your talk page instead of mine. As such, I've received the message below which is intended for you. I've updated your userpage with the correct link. Regards. Adambro 09:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this is not your Talk page, I have clicked a link on User:Jer10 95

Hi Jer10 95,

Just curious why you might have reverted edits that I was making to my own User page with VP?

Thanks for responding.

Take care,

Larry --Lmcelhiney 02:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that you have not see this message? Or should I just assume that you have chosen not to reply? Please, I await your earliest convenience. Thanks! --Lmcelhiney 16:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resent today --Lmcelhiney 23:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

)

Template:Infobox Astronaut

Fixed now :) - Alison^☺ 23:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please use edit summaries

Hello. Please be courteous to other editors and use edit summaries when updating articles. The Mathbot tool shows your usage of edit summaries to be low:

Edit summary usage for Jer10 95: 32% for major edits and 56% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 25 minor edits in the article namespace.

Using edit summaries helps other editors quickly understand your edits, which is especially useful when you make changes to articles that are on others' watchlists. Thanks and happy editing! --Kralizec! (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hasty vandalism presumption

I noticed you dunned an IP user as a (stage 3) vandal for this edit, his only one. A short consideration of his edit shows it to be a relevant reference, though poorly formatted. (It is to: Langewiesche, William. "Crash of EgyptAir 990." The Atlantic Monthly 288.4 (Nov 2001): 41-52.) It's usually best to Assume good faith. Perhaps you should consider replacing the warning with a welcome message. -R. S. Shaw 19:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Censorship notice - Alan Shepard

What?? I removed Image:Example.jpg. Was that wrong? Rettetast 15:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit: [2] Rettetast 06:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

řṛ== Do not use blocking templates ==

In future, please refrain from using any user block templates since you are not currently a Wikipedia:Administrator. You may inadvertently give the false impression to a user that you were responsible for issuing the block even though you have no authority to do so. In this case you actually duplicated a blocked notice that I had already put up. Thanks. -- Netsnipe ► 05:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is bad etiquette to modify another editor's user page without their prior consent or authorization from another administrator. Please don't do it ever again. -- Netsnipe ► 05:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:-(sorry, just being kind Jer10 95 Talk 05:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which page?

So I can look into it... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jer10_95/Userboxes

OK, its back. I remembered what happened. The page was showing up in the proposed deletion category. Looking at it now, there is no specific reason why it was, unless one of the templates was also in the category... strange. Well, sorry about that. It's back. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of environmental issues

Oh dear. It seem that I was a little too quick off the mark with that edit. and did indeed revert the reverted vandalism. It is a little harsh to call it vandalism however. Alan Liefting 05:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Timeline of STS-115

STS-115

To standardize shuttle missions, (see STS-116, STS-117, STS-118) I have merged Timeline of STS-115 into STS-115, and the Timeline page should be deleted. It has been tagged for deletion, since the information has been merged, and it has been orphaned since March 2007.

Project Space missions is working to standardize all the mission articles into the same format. You can find the nomination at AFD, if you'd like to comment, and you can refer to the project page for space missions if you have any questions. Thanks! ^Ariel♥Gold 00:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Modern_clock_chris_kemps_01_with_Nuvola_apps_important.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Modern_clock_chris_kemps_01_with_Nuvola_apps_important.png, 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. OsamaK 11:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:WEAF014975_450_9065.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:WEAF014975_450_9065.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}} 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 00:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Hubble Space Telescope servicing missions

A tag has been placed on Template:Hubble Space Telescope servicing missions requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{tranclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]