The Quirky Kitty

Hello, The Quirky Kitty, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question.
Again, welcome! --CherryX

Feel free to edit, you won't know if they are accepted if you won't take the first steps.   Consider visiting Wikipedia:Tutorial if you need help.

SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading File:Can't Get Enough (Eagle-Eye Cherry album).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 '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading File:(2006-04-05) A Little Oblique.png. 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 '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading File:(2006-04-05) deadmau5 Circa 1998-2002.png. 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 '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Let's see what it tells me. I could use some articles to edit.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Wow! Thanks, SuggestBot! That was fast!

  Thanks for uploading File:(2006-04-05) A Little Oblique.png. 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 '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading File:Turnitin logo.png. 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 '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Digital subscriber line access multiplexer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Resistance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

The article KABW (FM) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable and unreferenced.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. StudiesWorld (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Wikimedia:Meetup Pittsburgh

  Bfpage |leave a message  01:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

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) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Turnitin 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. kashmiri ^TALK 11:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Actright.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 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. —Cryptic 07:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for creating LowRISC, The Quirky Kitty!

Wikipedia editor Robertgombos just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I've placed the

This computer hardware article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

• v
• t
• e

tag on your article. I'll try to expand it.

To reply, leave a comment on Robertgombos's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Robert G. (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Several articles of yours have a promotional tone and can therefore wualify for WP:Deletion policy, I'm not sure whether this is intentional or whether you have a connection with them; if so, it's required you see Legal Terms of Use WP:Paid. If not, then the promotionalism is still equally unacceptable. SwisterTwister talk 18:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • This not intentional and I don't have any connection to these subjects. I will work on fixing the promotional tone of the articles, particularly SiFive. The Quirky Kitty (talk)

 

Thanks for uploading File:RISC-V 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Jo Jorgensen 2020 Campaign Logo.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. The free image that this one can can now be replaced with is: Jo Jorgensen 2020 campaign logo.png.  — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 07:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Looks like she indeed updated her logo. I don't object to deletion. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Jo Jorgensen 2020 Campaign 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for creating Death of Maeve Boothby-O’Neill. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because The article is not written in a general encyclopedic style. Please see WP:MOS for a guide to writing better articles.. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 15:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello and thanks for your suggestion that File:Academy of Ancient Music logo.jpg may qualify for {{Template:PD-textlogo}}. As it's a British logo, that may not work - I have been advised in the past that the threshold of originality is much stricter for UK logos (see COMMONS:COM:TOO UK) and so I am very cautious with applying licences to logos of British organisations and products. So I would advise leaving the British logos out of your {{Maybe free media}} list. Cnbrb (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

You're right, almost anything can be copyrighted in Britain. I still flagged it because "The most important thing for Wikipedia is to abide by U.S. copyright law, because the servers are located in the United States.". Commons requires a free license in both its origin country and the US, but Wikipedia only requires the US. In the likely case it's not PD in the UK, we can still give it Template:PD-ineligible-USonly. I'm not carefully considering the original situation of each and every logo, a I'm blowing through them by the thousands. Eventually I hope to clear most of my own backlog. I see that my comment "Consider PD-textlogo" can be confusing though, I'll stop adding a generic comment. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's a minefield - I'm no lawyer! Now you mention it, it may only be a problem on Commons. At a guess, if the licences on UK logos are changed to PD-textlogo it may be appropriate to tag them with {{Do not move to Commons}}. Oh well, just an issue to consider. Good luck with your endeavours. Cnbrb (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

There's three general ways logos can be exempt from copyright:

Template:PD-textlogo when it's free in its home country and the US.

Template:PD-US-no notice or similar for some older works. Tricky because you need to see the whole work to look for the notice.

Template:PD-ineligible-USonly when it's above the threshold of originality in its home country, but not in the US. We can't copy these to the Commons. They go to this category.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States#Threshold_of_originality gives many examples of what can be copyrighted, and what's barely creative enough to qualify The Quirky Kitty (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

You added a "maybe free" tag to the above file. As not only its uploader but also the original logo creator back in 1975, I did mention under "Not replaceable with free media because (WP:NFCC#1)": "Any illustration of the logo would still belong to the organization, thus be unfree, so you may as well accept this nice clean copy. (Bummer.)" In other words, any organization's registered logo belongs to that organization, thus is unfree. However, this is acceptable to use on articles *about* that organization. You might find a different depiction of the logo; you would not find a more-free one. – _•Raven  ^.talk 05:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just out of curiosity, why have you added Template:Maybe free media to several pieces of WP:NFC that I've uploaded? --- Tbf69 P • T 15:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm going through all the files in Category:All non-free logos, looking for media that is likely to be too simple to qualify for copyright protection. As I explained above:

There's three general ways logos can be exempt from copyright:

Template:PD-textlogo when it's free in its home country and the US.

Template:PD-US-no notice or similar for some older works. Tricky because you need to see the whole work to look for the notice.

Template:PD-ineligible-USonly when it's above the threshold of originality in its home country, but not in the US. We can't copy these to the Commons. They go to this category.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States#Threshold_of_originality gives many examples of what can be copyrighted, and what's barely creative enough to qualify The Quirky Kitty (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

The fact that this condition pre dates "covid" and that many people struggling with this condition never had "covid" must be taken into consideration. This discussion has nothing to do with the coronovirus, but instead looking at other possible causes. There are many articles published on the national libary of medicine detailing the ill effects on rats when exposed to the levels of radiation that celluar and wifi towers emit. And this is openly used in the research of diabetes type 1. So if rats suffer from Islet insulin secretion and content, lipid peroxidation, and antioxidant status in pancreas (aka diabetes type 1) when being exposed to 2.45 ghz for 4 hours a day for 45 days. How are other living creatures including human beings being affected when being exposed to 24-54 ghz 24/7? While its easy and conveinent to blame this condition on "covid 19" there is plently of research to suggest there are other plausable causes for cfs/me And that is what THIS discussion is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.54.248 (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey The Quirky Kitty! I saw the note you added here. I realize now that it's just text; do you think it might be better to use {{Template:PD-textlogo}}? I always err on the side of caution, but thought I'd start up a convo.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 20:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi The Quirky Kitty. Please immediately stop adding {{Maybe free media}} to file description pages, these are not helpful changes. Worse, you appear to have been using some sort of automation to edit well over ten thousand images, which runs afoul of WP:MEATBOT. I've also spot checked your tags, and there are many, many images which should never have been tagged (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). At this point, I'm considering performing a mass rollback and/or referring this to ANI. -FASTILY 20:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Fastily: In The Quirky Kitty's defense, I did find their tag to be useful (see previous talk page post); the tag is also simply raising questions about (overly-cautious) non-free rationales. I feel like their actions are being done/were doing in good faith and a mass-revert and/or ANI might be premature.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 20:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Right, AGF is why I've done neither of those things yet, I want to see an explanation from The Quirky Kitty first. I'm more concerned about their extremely fast pace of editing and number of mistakes. Also, I'm not convinced that adding this tag in general is a helpful exercise. In situations where PD files are legitimately mistagged non-free, instead of pointing out problems with this tag, why not be bold and just fix the damn problem? -FASTILY 20:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

IMHO, there's nothing wrong with getting consensus from other editors about this sort of thing (after all, one person's "being bold" is another person's "editing without consensus"), especially considering that it's a legal question.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 22:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Broadly speaking, I agree, but not on 15k images in the span of a few days. There's no way these are being tagged with an appropriate level of due diligence. Wikipedia is not a race. -FASTILY 23:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm stopping until some consensus emerges on whether that I'm doing is good or bad. (Edit: And until I get sufficient feedback what needs to be done differently.) The Quirky Kitty (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please give me a little time to construct an informative explanation of my workflow, how I classify images, and make judgement calls. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I will lay out my reasoning candidly, without attempting to justify the parts that may seem dubious in hindsight. Like an investigation into a plane crash or industrial accident, to prevent further incidents, you must understand both the nature of the mistake and the broader context that made it possible.

I had done a lot of reading on the threshold of originality concept and one or two logos that were tagged non-free but could be changed to PD-textlogo caught my eye. I found Category:All non-free logos and saw a few that could be recategorized. I tend to categorize things obsessively in real life, so the idea of going through all 164,000 of them (!) was highly rewarding. I knew that if a logo could be appropriately relicensed, it'd be advantageous to do so, so NFCC would no longer apply: We could use it freely in lists and articles where it isn't strictly necessary, and store it in high resolution. Many of them could be shuffled to the Commons where they'd be archived for their historical value even if the company deleted all old versions from their site or went out of business entirely.

When I started I was changing the license tag myself, rather than adding Maybe free media. But that's quite slow, and besides, finding candidate images in the sea of logos is perhaps the most tedious part. So I just started tagging Maybe free media on everything. In the future, either I or someone else could come around to them again.

That also seemed very slow and tedious. One evening I wrote a userscript in Greasemonkey that allowed me to rapidly browse and classify everything in the non-free logos category. I was amazed at how much more productive I was, and you're right, I was editing at warp speed. I figured speed alone isn't a problem, as there are plenty of semi-automated tools out there. One I use frequently on the Commons is called Cat-a-lot.

I judge my rate of errors to be pretty low. You can see I occasionally make dubious edits but revert them immediately after. I'm sure I've made a few mistakes. The category is called Possibly free images, implying some level of false positive is acceptable, as more careful review is needed before going further.

I'll explain each one of the cases you brought up. I tend to use https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_States_of_America as a reference.

1: File:AEGGE logo.svg

The most complex element in this logo is a plain map of Europe. As I understand it, a plain representation of a geographic feature isn't creative. See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Threshold_of_originality#Maps which links to Public Domain Sherpa who says, "If the components of the map are "entirely obvious" the map will not be copyrightable. For example, an outline map of the state of Texas, or one of the US showing the state boundaries is not copyrightable." Then you have stars arranged in a circle and replacing the hole in the A, all simple geometric shapes. And the text is just lettering. If you don't consider Europe, which nobody owns, the rest could be considered similar in complexity to perhaps the Bruce Lee logo, which was refused copyright registration in the US. This is all based on the US. I don't have any info on Belgium's threshold of originality, but it can be tagged with PD-ineligible-USonly.

2: File:2018 CONCACAF Women's Championship.png

There's three elements here. The text, which is uncontroversially uncreative, the W, which is in a fancy font but still a W. Then you have the border around the W. They're all diamonds, but the most creative element is surrounding the W in diamonds and putting a gradient on it. The organization and the even are in the US so only US law should apply.

3: File:Adventist Health logo.png

The pictorial element here is the leaves. They're very abstract, made of triangles with rounded corners. I don't feel it's more creative than File:Nikken logo and wordmark.svg with its two simple geometric people. Also a US organization.

4: File:Nikken logo and wordmark.svg

Like #1, it's a single-color rendition of the shape of Ireland. The rest is text in a standard font. I'm not sure what Ireland's threshold is, but it can get PD-ineligible-USonly at the minimum.

5: File:AD+PD logo.svg

It's a flower, but it's very abstract (a circle and 4 ovals). My impression is that if a picture is so simple it consists of only a few geometric shapes, it lacks the relative level of creativity. Commons has nothing on Malta's threshold so it could be tagged with PD-ineligible-USonly likewise

6: File:Adalus.JPG

It's a flower made of 8 "s-like" shapes with a gradient behind them. It's dubious enough that it was wrong to tag it. Commons doesn't demonstrate much about when color and shading confer originality.

Is there another page where this discussion can be mentioned so interested editors could discuss here? One or two more opinions wouldn't hurt. [Edit: It's OK to ask that, right?] Tagging images more conservatively, or going through the ones I tagged looking for specific issues would be okay, but I see that proceeding without consensus isn't okay; I see that standards for rapid-fire editing are higher due to the risk of everything being flooded with garbage. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

"a userscript in Greasemonkey". Yeah, at the minimum, this warrants a bot request via WP:BRFA. It's one thing if you're using a semi-automated script to make a few dozen edits, but tens of thousands is an entirely different story. I personally believe PD-ineligible should be applied conservatively, and it's worth noting that Commons does deem the Snapchat logo (which is less complex than the examples above) as above US TOO (c.f. 1, 2). I doubt the examples above would survive a DR at Commons. Also, if you encounter a PD file that is incorrectly tagged non-free, then instead of just talking about it, why don't you fix it yourself? This is a wiki after all. I fail to see how a massive, unworkable category benefits anyone. If anything, it looks like an ill founded attempt to pad your edit count. -FASTILY 03:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Okay. I messed up by thinking my editing wouldn't be subject to the bot rules (or something similar) because it wasn't a true bot. If I proposed it there, I'd get the feedback I need to do this properly if approved. I will go through BRFA if I ever resume this project.

For now, do you object to me working through Category:Possibly free images, which is too complex a task to be automated? For more borderline media, I will ask at Files for discussion before changing the license. I've listed things there before and it looks like a better place than Media copyright questions because they mention it in their header: "NFCC applied to free image – The file is used under a claim of fair use, but the file is either too simple, or is an image which has been wrongly labeled given evidence presented on the file description page." The Quirky Kitty (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Addendum: I certainly would not have tagged Snapchat's logo because it's pictorial and composed of more than a few geometric shapes. In a deletion discussion in the Commons, I argued the Reddit logo was too complex. And the Snapchat logo is even more artistic. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, working through the files in Category:Possibly free images would be a great place to start. Please also consider transferring eligible files to Commons. As someone who routinely closes WP:FFD discussions, I recommend using WP:MCQ before jumping to FFD. MCQ gets more traffic, and you're more likely to get a helpful response there. -FASTILY 22:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Excellent, thank you. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

The Photographer's Barnstar

It's all too easy when encountering an image with insufficient copyright to take the path of least resistance and just support its deletion. You didn't do that, instead reaching out to the holder to try to seek permission. Separately, I've noticed and appreciated your work tagging files with {{Maybe free media}}, helping us make maximum use of images like this whose use we needn't restrict. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm overjoyed! This is my first barnstar in over 10 years of editing. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi The Quirky Kitty. Not sure if you were aware, but if you encounter files with "hidden" revisions blocking a move to Commons, you may request that they be resorted at WP:REFUND. Regards, FASTILY 23:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for informing me, I didn't know there was a process for that. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just a heads up that I filed for a move request on File:KNTV logo.svg. That's w:KTNV-TV in Las Vegas, Nevada, not w:KNTV in San Jose, California. (There's also a w:KTVN in Reno, Nevada!) When writing file names for broadcast call signs, spend a second to make sure you've spelled them correctly. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

My apologies. Thanks for pointing out my mistake and I'll check call letters carefully. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

An article you recently created, WEMR-LP, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi QuirkyKitty, thanks for your excellent and thorough work on the “CFS” article especially the crucial (IMO) change (hopefully soon) to “ME/CFS.”

Letting u know I’m going to edit the draft on David Tuller. IMO, there was way too much reliance on the horrendous Reuters article- a pure hit piece that seriously misrepresents the situation and is extremely biased. Yes, it is from a source considered “generally reliable.” WP:REUTERS Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Reuters

However, there can be individual articles such as this one from a “generally reliable” source which not reliable. I think it’s pretty obvious the whole article is character assassination and I won’t detail all the examples as I might as well just cut and paste the entire article. One is the correction posted at the bottom saying it now includes the fact that Tuller is an academic. They only changed this, IIRC after (natch) a blogpost by Tuller strongly objecting and many patients contacting the author and Reuters. Take out the basic fact that Tuller’s “campaigning” (“harassment” of scientists as it seems to me pretty clearly she was implying) is work product of UC Berkeley School of Public Health and constitutes half of the job description of his academic appointment there, and this story as was written was one of a bunch of crazy campaigners including an unqualified lone nutball spending all of his unemployed time flying around the world harassing innocent scientists resulting in them leaving the field and thus patients suffering from lack of bona fide research.

Even though the correction was made, it shows the animating motive of the article- to use misrepresentation by extremes of omission and mischaracterization to tell a defamatory story.

In any event, even if it were a WP:RS article, it is not required that every relevant RS be cited by an article. There isnt that much RS material out there about Tuller, but there is enough for this article considering the article should be relatively brief because though I believe he meets the notability standard, he is close to the low end of notability IMJ and WP’s readability guideline favors concision for articles with relatively low notability subjects. Following cites, See Also and Google searches are for those obsessed with the PACEMan, not Wikipedia. :) Thoughts? JustinReilly (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey, it's totally fine if you edit Draft:David Tuller, it's a public draft that anyone can.

Without looking carefully into sources and weight, I think we need balanced coverage of criticism people get, but I also see that this critique might not be very relevant to Tuller personally. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 06:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well, no consensus. :( Does it make sense to appeal this? (or whatever the next step would be) I haven’t been involved in a renaming request process before. JustinReilly (talk) 03:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Pages get moved when there's consensus. There's no hard guideline on that, but there were 7 votes for and 6 against, with neither side agreeing on much. That's as slim majority, not consensus. Appealing might be theoretically possible, but it wouldn't be reasonable, because any reasonable person will make the came conclusion. If we appealed, they'd ask why we're appealing when it's obviously been decided. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for marking File:DWA logo.svg as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Is there a guide to its use anywhere?- I could determine if the law also likely applies in the UK. Most likely the association would agree its moving to commons if I asked, but if the logo were PD, there's no need. U003F^? 06:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

c:Commons:Threshold of originality is the authoritative guide.

• Below threshold in both US and home country: Copy to Commons
• Below threshold in US but not home country: {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}

As a quick reference, the following countries have a very low threshold mandating {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} frequently: the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, and Singapore. UK law influenced many other countries, so it's often those with close ties to the UK. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. If you're marking something as public domain because it was published before 1928, please verify it was first published in the US.

If not, please mark it with {{PD-US-expired-abroad}}. If you don't, then it may get accidentally transferred to Commons where it will be deleted as a copyright violation since it's still copyrighted in its home country (example).

Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I went through my edits since May 14, before the time I started fixing many expired copyrights, and changed any non-US publications to {{PD-US-expired-abroad}}. I have a question about copyright terms I will ask at WP:Media copyright questions as well. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi The Quirky Kitty. As I said before, please use MCQ to ask whether something is below TOO before jumping straight to FFD. Thanks, FASTILY 17:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I apologize for using the wrong venue. Your instruction slipped my mind, I put one file up at MCQ and nobody responded, and my gut told me the more logical place was FfD...I was wrong about that. Future questions about originality will go to MCQ. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, The Quirky Kitty. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Death of Maeve Boothby-O’Neill, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, The Quirky Kitty. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Death of Maeve Boothby-O’Neill".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well, the consensus was that the topic didn't reach notability (it was booted from the main space) and no additional media coverage ever arrived. I will request undeletion if more sources become available. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, The Quirky Kitty. Thank you for your work on 2-day CPET. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hey there! Hope you're having a great day. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia with your article. I'm happy to inform you that your article has adhered to Wikipedia's policies, so I've marked it as reviewed. Have a fantastic day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

The reason I uploaded the file under the pretense it was non-free was due to the "hairiness" of the text, which may pass the threshold of originality. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 23:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the "Hairness" alone meets the threshold, but if you disagree, you can start a discussion at media copyright questions The Quirky Kitty (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, The Quirky Kitty. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:WEMR-LP, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

The image should not be considered as simple font or typefaces. It should be considered a calligraphy work as most institution names in China are inscribed by famous people or calligraphers.

Chinese copyright law protects original works of authorship, including calligraphy. When someone creates a unique calligraphy piece, they automatically hold the copyright to that work. The United States also recognizes copyright protection for original works of authorship, including calligraphy. Like in China, the creator of a calligraphy piece holds the copyright to that work upon creation. Benjamin Ceci (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am under the impression that calligraphy is under the threshold of originality. For example, File:JeetKuneDo.svg was refused copyright protection in the US. But since you disagree, I will list this file at Media copyright questions and the outcome of that discussion will inform my future practices. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've just spent about an hour searching, and was wondering if you're familiar with any other sources. I feel he must be notable given he was the ME pioneer, but I've only been able to find a single Guardian obituary (User:Femke/sandbox#Melvin_Ramsay_sources), and a few single-paragraph or less discussions in papers.. Maybe a case can be made for WP:NBASIC, combining a larger number of sources with less in-depth discussion. There are two awards named after him from ME patient groups, which may allow for a (weak?) case to be made under 1e of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, I don't have anything. If I come across something, I will edit it into your page. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:YouTube screenshot.webp. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello there @User:The Quirky Kitty, I saw that you reverted my removal of the mtc template from File:AceOfSpace1.jpg. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't file versions are typically suppressed because they are subject to copyright? Furthermore, the file is unsuitable also because it is non-free. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 02:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, normally that's the case. What happened here was a bit different:

• Someone uploaded the logo as non-free
• A bot shrunk it down
• I changed the license because it is simple shapes and text
• Now it can be moved to commons once the revision is unhidden. I just requested that.

The Quirky Kitty (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:YouTube screenshot.webp, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:McKissack & McKissack logo 2023.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Fixed promptly. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

This image was published in New Zealand in 1922, but in order for it to be in the public domain in the United States, it would have to have been published in the United States. Do you have any evidence of such publication? BD2412 T 20:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

On further review, I'm not clear on whether New Zealand's accession to the Berne convention also automatically makes this public domain in the United States. BD2412 T 20:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to take this to WP:Media copyright questions because, well, if you're right, I might have to undo a decent number of my own edits, so I definitely want a third opinion. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

For now, I am creating a new category tree for biographical images by date of publication that does not specify whether or not the images are "non-free"; it is still useful to categorize these images by date. BD2412 T 20:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, so I see you are pretty knowledgeable with the "Maybe free media" tag, I already made a discussion on Village Pump about the quality of the TOO is high for them to move them to Commons? Here are the files:

• Smiling Friends
• Your Pretty Face is Going to Hell
• Ballmastrz
• Unicorn Warriors Eternal
• The Great North
• Infinity Train
• Ben 10 Omniverse and Ultimate Alien
• We Baby Bears
• Penguins of Madagascar (Original Madagascar Logo is already at Commons as PD-Text)
• Fanboy and ChumChum
• It's Pony! (This one is a bit tricky, it's a British produced series which has strict TOO rules but it was first aired in the US and I assume Nickelodeon USA has the copyrights over the series.)

From the Thread they told me the Penguins and We Baby Bears logos pass the TOO to be copyrighted but I still have my doubts so I need your help on which files could be PD-TextLogo, Thanks! Hyperba21 (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, can I get a link to the Village Pump discussion? The Quirky Kitty (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, the best place to ask questions about copyright is Media Copyright Questions. So if you have further questions, you'll find more people with similar experience there. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sure, here it is. Also thanks, I'll also do discussions there. Hyperba21 (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Village Pump discussion is too old to reply to so I'll just comment here.

• Smiling Friends: Definitely PD-Textlogo and move to Commons. It's hand-lettered but just lettering. Fonts have to be a lot more ornamented than this to qualify.
• Your Pretty Face is Going to Hell: It might be movable to commons, but I'd keep as fair use to be safe. I'm generally conservative.
• Ballmastrz: I've move to Commons because the only affect (outlining in the backgroun) is fairly simple.
• Unicorn Warriors Eternal: I'd keep as fair use to be safe.
• The Great North: I'd consider it a toss-up.
• Infinity Train: Same
• Ben 10 Omniverse and Ultimate Alien: I'd move the first one but leave the second alone.
• We Baby Bears: There's a pretty substantial 3-D affect, I'd also keep as-is.
• Penguins of Madagascar (Original Madagascar Logo is already at Commons as PD-Text): Same
• Fanboy and ChumChum: Same
• It's Pony! (This one is a bit tricky, it's a British produced series which has strict TOO rules but it was first aired in the US and I assume Nickelodeon USA has the copyrights over the series.): I'd follow US rules then. By that standard it's probably safe to move to Commons.

The Quirky Kitty (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hope that helps. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done and done tagging, I do agree with most of them, I do still have my doubts with Infinity Train, already did a search on the Public Catalog and doesn't seem the logo seems Copyrightable or registred. I'll see what does the community speak on a post on Media Copyright Questions. Thanks! Hyperba21 (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'm pretty careful about tagging. Infinity Train is probably below the TOO. A work doesn't need to be registered in order to be copyrighted, but if it is registered, it's proof it is. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, thanks for sorting out the downgrading of the image, would you mind helping me understand how I specify the logic behind including it at The Ambassadors (Holbein). The image was automatically removed AIUI and I am somewhat clueless about the tagging. The fair use justification is that it was clearly produced by the author to aid understanding of his method to view the skull, and necessary in order to understand his concept. It's borderline whether it would even count as a new creative work, but that's probably not relevant. There is clearly no impact on the value of the original, it is not competing for sales etc.

Let me know if you can help! thank you :) Jim Killock (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah, yes! The bot keeps taking it down from The Ambassadors (Holbein) because you need a fair use rationale. Just add {{Non-free use rationale 2}} and fill out the fields to the best of your ability. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much, I think it's now done as per your instructions :) Jim Killock (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, The Quirky Kitty. Thank you for your work on 2023 Caribbean heat wave. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for your work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

The article WBOA-CD has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Let'srun (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

The article WPTG-CD has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject does not meet the GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Let'srun (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:WLKQ 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, The Quirky Kitty. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "WEMR-LP".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:CJ Pony Parts, updated logo.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

It was a typo. Fixed. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good day. For your revert to the file, please note that having more code doesn't equate to it being a "larger version", it can also mean that the file contains an unnecessary amount of junk code. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 03:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. I reverted this one by mistake, not because I thought the bigger SVG was better. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

On 12 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some people with severe myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome can lose the ability to speak? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

The article WQVC-CD has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject does not meet the GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

The article WJKF-CD has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject does not meet the GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PBS logo.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 02:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WWAT-CD is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWAT-CD until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:YouTube screenshot.webp. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Reply