text:
User talk:Aljodasch

Hi, do you have copyright tags for all of your pope images? gren 20:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * It wouldn't necessarily be listed on the source webpage because many many webpages have copyright violations (or are claiming fair use without doing so explicitly). I think some of them were of ancient coins or pictures which makes them  or  I believe.  Thank you for your efforts, they are better than the Papal seals :)

 * Also, could you add " ~ " to the end of your posts on people's talk pages? (or click the signature link up top) it makes it easier to see who it's coming from.  Thanks again, gren 19:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gregory IX fresco?
Your image of Gregory IX excommunicating Frederick II (Image:B Gregor IX2.jpg). It looks like a late 16th century fresco. Is it at Anagni? --Wetman 01:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Death of simon magus.jpg
Hello, you have uploaded this picture. Could you please add further informations onto the page please (wo made this and when)? Thanks, Scriberius 22:03, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Calixtusiii.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Calixtusiii.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use or fairuse. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by going to "Your contributions" from your user page and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. Ingoolemo talk 17:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:B_Urban_VII.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:B_Urban_VII.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as db-unksource.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 06:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Urban VII.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Urban VII.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Dethomas 23:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Innocentix.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Innocentix.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 14:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Clement X.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Clement X.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use 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. Lendu 13:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:B_Honorius_IV.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:B_Honorius_IV.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Untagged image
An image you uploaded, Image:Gelasius II.gif, was tagged with the coatofarms copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as seal. If you have any questions, ask them at Media copyright questions. -- 14:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Alexander_IV1.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Alexander_IV1.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Anastasius_IV.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Anastasius_IV.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Unspecified source for Image:Urban VII.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Urban VII.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 Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See 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 Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 87.52.25.155 09:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC) This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Innocent_VIII.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Innocent_VIII.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 Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See 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 Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  howcheng  {chat} 00:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Innocent VIII.JPG
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Innocent VIII.JPG, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Innocent VIII.JPG fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: OrphanBot keeps removing link from Summis desiderantes affectibus; please remove this image, it is on commons To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Innocent VIII.JPG, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Innocent VIII.JPG itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 12:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:B Gregor VII4.jpg
This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:B Gregor VII4.jpg. 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, 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 Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See 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 Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 11:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:B_Alexander_II1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:B_Alexander_II1.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, 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 Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See 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 Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 14:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:B_Benedikt_VIII.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:B_Benedikt_VIII.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, 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 Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See 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 Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 14:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No source
Hello! You have uploaded many unsoueced images. Please review your upload log, and try to fix them. Thank you!--OsamaK 14:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Martin V.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Martin V.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, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:GregoryXIV.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:GregoryXIV.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, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:B_Alexander_II1.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:B_Alexander_II1.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, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:B_Calixtus_II.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:B_Calixtus_II.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, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:B_Clemens_VI.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:B_Clemens_VI.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, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:B_Colestin_II.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:B_Colestin_II.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, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:B_Johannes_XXII.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:B_Johannes_XXII.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, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:B_Lucius_III.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:B_Lucius_III.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, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Leoxi.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Leoxi.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, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Alexandervii.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Alexandervii.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, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Sixtusv.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Sixtusv.jpg. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

title: User talk:Aljodasch


text: Category:Rivers of Jordan

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Category:Rivers of Jordan


text:
Oxidative coupling

Oxidative coupling in chemistry is a coupling reaction of two molecular entities through an oxidative process. Usually oxidative couplings are catalysed by a transition metal complex like in classical cross-coupling reactions, although the underlying mechanism is different due to the oxidation process that requires an external (or internal) oxidant. Many such couplings utilize dioxygen as the stoichiometric oxidant but proceed by electron transfer.

C-C Couplings
Many oxidative couplings generate new C-C bonds. Early examples involve coupling of terminal alkynes:
 * 2 RC≡CH +  2 Cu(I)  →   RC≡C-C≡CR  +  2 Cu  +  2 H+

Aromatic coupling
In oxidative aromatic coupling the reactants are electron-rich aromatic compounds. Typical substrates are phenols and typical catalysts are copper and iron compounds and enzymes, although Scholl demonstrated that high heat and a Lewis acid suffice. The first reported synthetic application dates back to 1868 with Julius Löwe and the synthesis of ellagic acid by heating gallic acid with arsenic acid or silver oxide. Another reaction is the synthesis of 1,1'-Bi-2-naphthol from 2-naphthol by iron chloride, discovered in 1873 by Alexander Dianin (S)-BINOL can be prepared directly from an asymmetric oxidative coupling of 2-naphthol with copper(II) chloride.

Coupling of methane
Coupling reactions involving methane are highly sought, related to C1 chemistry because C2 derivatives are far more valuable than methane. The oxidative coupling of methane gives ethylene:
 * 2 + →  + 2

Other oxidative couplings
The oxygen evolution reaction entails, in effect, the oxidative coupling of water molecules to give O2.

title: Oxidative coupling


text:
Mirsad Bešlija

Mirsad Bešlija (born 6 July 1979) is a Bosnian former professional footballer who played as a right winger.

He has most notably played for Željezničar, Genk, Heart of Midlothian and the Bosnia and Herzegovina national team.

Club career
Bešlija started his career with hometown club Slaven Živinice. Although he was among the youngest players in their squad, he became an important part of the first team. He was spotted there and signed by Bosna Visoko, a first division team at that time, in 1997. He spent two seasons in Visoko, during which he won both the Bosnian Cup and Supercup. His rapid footballing ascent attracted the interest of Željezničar and he signed for them in 2000, becoming a fan favourite during his single season in the capital. He won three trophies in that period with Željezničar, one Bosnian Premier League title, one cup and one Supercup.

Bešlija joined Genk in July 2001, where he stayed for five years, and made over 130 league appearances, winning the Belgian First Division title with them in 2002. He moved to Scottish side Heart of Midlothian during January 2006 in a deal worth £850,000 (€1.22 million), a record fee paid by the Tynecastle side at the time. A dispute developed about whether the overall transfer fee should include agents percentages or not, leading Hearts to suspend payment after the first installment. When further dialogue brought no resolution, Genk petitioned UEFA to impose a transfer embargo upon Hearts, however, an agreement was finally reached in December 2006, with Hearts paying the entire outstanding balance.

Bešlija suffered serious injury problems at Hearts and he failed to win a regular first team place. He was loaned out to Belgian club Sint-Truidense for the 2007–08 season, and was released by Hearts in October 2008 after they reached a severance agreement.

In 2009, he re-signed with Željezničar and retired in 2012, winning four more trophies in the process, two leagues and two cups.

International career
Bešlija made his debut for Bosnia and Herzegovina in a January 2001 Sahara Millennium Cup match against Bangladesh and has earned a total of 37 caps, scoring 4 goals. His final international was a September 2006 European Championship qualification match against Hungary.

Honours
Bosna Visoko
 * Bosnian Cup: 1998–99
 * Bosnian Supercup: 1999

Željezničar
 * Bosnian Premier League: 2000–01, 2009–10, 2011–12
 * Bosnian Cup: 2000–01, 2010–11, 2011–12
 * Bosnian Supercup: 2000

Genk
 * Belgian First Division: 2001–02

title: Mirsad Bešlija


text: User talk:71.112.69.6

title: User talk:71.112.69.6


text:
User talk:Staticfish

Please tag your images: Image:UndergroundTicket.JPG ed g2s  •  talk  20:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I could not see why Ethiopia needed to be tagged as you did and have removed it. The article certainly has flaws, but sounding like a CIA briefing is not one of them. Thanks,  BanyanTree 14:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Roehampton.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Roehampton.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. -- Carnildo 08:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk page chronology
Please be advised talk pages run in chronological order, with the latest comments at the bottom. If you add comments to the top of the page it is likely that someone will refactor them and put them at the bottom. This is not "reverting". Kind regards, Mrsteviec 06:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Corporate blueback.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Corporate blueback.gif. 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. BetacommandBot 04:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Itunespodcast.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Itunespodcast.png. 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. Breno talk 03:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Googlevoicelogo.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Googlevoicelogo.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Stuart Price.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Stuart Price.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.
 * 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  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) 05:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Staticfish


text:
Talk:Redwall (novel)

Redwall Wiki
If you're interested in writing Redwall character bios or just contributing to Redwall online in general, check out the Redwall Wiki, http://redwall.wikia.com. This is an online communal resource dedicated to providing Redwall information. --LordTBT 00:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Just as a random note, St. Ninian's is not actually a church. It's explained in a later book. A mousewife (I think) built a house and her husband, Ninian, wouldn't help. She put up a sign, saying "This ain't Ninian's!" and all that was eventually left was "saint ninians". It's explained in the form of a song... somewhere... 129.62.48.184 (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC) What is the highest you can get? A++ or +++? i also put no because, it is a real book and not a task of the fantasy task force. Ninian, you need a citation. Jeez, read the rules.

 * I'm pretty sure the song is in Martin the Warrior when Martin is describing where he was born Jpjacobs.00 (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the song is in The Legend of Luke. :) Thimbleguy   (talk)   (contribs)  02:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Relation to ancient literature
There is an ancient Greek parody of the Iliad called "The Battle of Frogs and Mice" https://www.gutenberg.org/files/348/348-h/348-h.htm

Redwall is the same thing retold as a children's novel.

Homer sympathized with both Greeks and Trojans, but in Redwall the mice are good and the rats are evil. Same problem with Tolkien.

Books from 2500 years ago are more open-minded and tolerant than what the present generation grew up with. (!) A.j.allinger (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Redwall (novel)


text:
Dmitry Kholodov

Dmitry Yuryevich Kholodov (Дми́трий Ю́рьевич Хо́лодов; 21 July 1967 – 17 October 1994) was a Russian journalist who investigated corruption in the military and was assassinated on 17 October 1994 in Moscow.

Early life and education
Kholodov was born in Zagorsk (now Sergiyev Posad) on 21 June 1967. He studied physics.

Career
Kholodov began his working life alongside his parents at the defence industry institute in Klimovsk in the Moscow Region. Faced by limited career prospects he turned to journalism, first working for the local radio. In 1992, he became a reporter with the national Moskovsky Komsomolets daily newspaper.

In 1993, Kholodov travelled to hotspots around the former Soviet Union, reporting for Moskovsky Komsomolets. In particular, he was in Abkhazia during the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict and, as he witnessed the ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia, sent many detailed reports, including one entitled "Sukhumi apocalypse".

In October 1993, Kholodov interviewed Defence Minister Pavel Grachev. For the next twelve months, on the basis of leaks from army and Ministry of Defence sources, he wrote and published numerous articles about high-level corruption in the military, especially concerning the misuse of funds intended to ease the withdrawal and resettlement of half a million former Soviet troops and their families who had been based in East Germany. Kholodov was due to speak at Duma hearings into these allegations, which supposedly reached as high as the defence minister himself, when he was murdered. None of the allegations were ever tested in court. Grachev was replaced as Defence Minister in 1996 after the end of the First Chechen War.

Assassination
Kholodov died on 17 October 1994 when he opened a booby-trapped briefcase in his newspaper's offices. He had picked up the case that morning from the left-luggage section at a Moscow train station after being told it contained documents exposing corruption in the armed forces. The editors of Kholodov's daily, Moskovsky Komsomolets, accused the Russian military leadership (Defence Minister Grachev in particular) of ordering the killing. The military denied involvement. Speaking as a witness in court some six years later, Pavel Grachev claimed that "some of my subordinates misunderstood my words".

Local and foreign correspondents had already died in Moscow and elsewhere in the country (see List of journalists killed in Russia), but this was the first indisputable targeting of a journalist for their work. Kholodov's murder sent shockwaves through Russia's media community. Reaction abroad was muted, apart from professional media monitors and human rights organisations, and after December 1994 his killing was overshadowed by the onset of the First Chechen War. Kholodov's violent death personalized the risk faced by reporters in Russia, and the long drawn-out investigation and subsequent failure to convict the suspects had a chilling effect on investigative journalism in the country's newly free media.

The case remains unique in one aspect. With one exception (Oleg Sedinko in 2002), explosives have never again been used to kill a journalist in Russia; and unlike the ongoing spate of contract killings no evidence was presented in court that money had been paid to Kholodov's alleged killers. They were acting, apparently, to avoid the displeasure of their superiors and to advance their careers.

Trial and acquittal
The trial of six defendants, four of them serving military officers, began in 2000 at the Moscow District Military Court (see Russian courts). They were acquitted in 2002 and again, after a second trial, in 2004. On both occasions the Prosecutor General's Office protested against the verdict to the Russian Supreme Court.

Kholodov's elderly parents and their lawyers alleged improprieties in the conduct of the trial and the behaviour of the different judges presiding over the two trials (the second of whom, Yevgeny Zubov, would be in charge of the trial of Anna Politkovskaya's alleged killers). An attempt was made to have a complaint about the lack of a fair trial examined before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. It was rejected on the grounds that the murder preceded Russia's full accession to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in 1998. By 2004, the killing was also technically beyond the statute of limitation for murder laid down in Russia's 1960 Criminal Code. Speaking in Germany in 2008, however, President Dmitry Medvedev said that the killings of certain journalists were of such importance that there should be no time limit for the prosecution of those responsible. Kholodov's case was still unsolved as of 2009.

title: Dmitry Kholodov


text:
User talk:Shell Kinney

pass-out teh baked goodies

Gold Hat (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Is your revert possibly overbroad?
User_talk:GeofferybardJune 2011 (UTC)

Questions about a deleted turquoise serpent
It seems that an inexperienced editor is trying to ask you a question at Wikipedia talk:Uploading images. HLHJ (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Desert Rose (Adenium obesum) pic.jpg

The file File:Desert Rose (Adenium obesum) pic.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

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 notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

title: User talk:Shell Kinney


text: Category:Rivers of Iraq

title: Category:Rivers of Iraq


text:
Talk:Western Iron Brigade

Origins
Isn't there a lack of clarity on the origin of the name, with the story presented being the most likely? --Habap 20:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * What other versions of the story can you cite? Hal Jespersen 20:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When has the Iron Brigade (Black Hats) ever been referred to as "The Iron Brigade of the West?" Certainly not in Nolan, or any other principal history book I have read. Seems, like someone is being a bit revisionist, as the disambiguation page for Iron Brigade does not even link to this page and prominently features the "Iron Brigade of the East," also a new construction. --65.209.67.124 (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well actually they were called the Iron Brigade of the West in many Written works, for instance look at the notes in the Journal of William Ray a member of the 7th Wisconsin Volunteers Co. F. In fact if you search the web there are plenty of references to the Iron Brigade of the west. To call me a revisionist is an insult. The Iron Brigade of the East, was in fact the First Iron Brigade under Hatch and Phelps much earlier in the war than Western Iron Brigade, or as they were known, Iron Brigade of the west.

There is a reference as well to the First Iron Brigade in the Diary of James Mero Matthews of the 2nd Us Sharpshooters Company D, where on Tues. December 30th 1862, they were transferred to Berdan's 1st Usss, and says "an we left this old Iron Brigade". Just because Officers such as Colonel Dawes was Politician and twisted facts and changed reports post war doesn't mean that in fact the Eastern and Western Iron Brigades went by these names.

And If You Require Some Online Links here are some... http://members.tripod.com/~g_cowardin/rcwrt/082000.htm http://www.civilwarhome.com/iron.htm http://www.geocities.com/heartland/prairie/2089/ironbrigade.html http://www.2ndwisconsincoh.com/HISTORY.htm

there are PLENTY more references to the Iron Brigade of the West, just look at the article on the Iron Brigade Page, would the real Iron Brigade please stand up! The reason the Western Iron Brigade shouldn't be labeled as Iron Brigade is because it was NOT the only Iron Brigade during the war, and I feel it being a disservice to my ancestors and all who fought under the Eastern Iron Brigade! The problem, is that who are people going to know about this newly re-discovered information pertaining to the Eastern and Western Iron Brigade if when you search in Wikipedia, you only see the Iron Brigade of the West!? This needs to be changed!

--Frank Ruiz

The question isn't whether there were more than one Iron Brigades in the war. There were many Iron Brigades in many services in many wars. The question is which one is most relevant to the search term. I may prefer the Baltimore Orioles over the actual bird, 'Oriole' but it is the latter that is the obvious main article. The former, like other Iron Brigades, should go in a disambiguation page. The Western troops are the only ones referred to in the Union OR as 'Iron Brigade.' Truth be known that Shelby's Raiders have a wider claim to the title than the troops in Phelps's brigade.

If you're taking it personally and believe your ancestors are being insulted, I don't think you should be editing the Wikipedia page. Pages should be objective and non-biased. If you believe there is a controversy, create a page to that effect and link to it. Regardless, creating a disambiguation page that only linked to the First Iron Brigade and not the Western one was a serious distortion.

I'm not disputing the Phelps's brigade was called by some the 'Iron Brigade.' Phelps did not apparently, and the only references are among a few of the brigade's members. Therefore, at best, it's an 'Iron Brigade' but certainly not 'The Iron Brigade.' 'The Iron Brigade' is applied almost universally in Civil War histories when referring to the brigade from the West. --65.209.67.124 (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but this is not a biased view of the Original Iron Brigade. During the war, they were both the Iron Brigade, because the Western Iron Brigade is remembered now is because of revisionist historians post war. If you do the research like myself and a few other historians like myself you will see that the iron brigade of the west was not THE Iron Brigade as you have said above. And Phelps did call his brigade the Iron Brigade, he took command of the brigade from Hatch who took it from Augur. They all had medals issued to them Stating that they were the "First" Iron Brigade. Post war, all the veterans of the "First" Iron Brigade, always battled with the members of the "Second" Iron Brigade. The 24th New York Infantry, a member of the "Iron Brigade of East" had Iron Brigade on the their Battle Flag, and that flag is held in the Capital up in albany. Captain Austin W. Holden wrote a song and a poem about the Original Iron Brigade for Col. Phelps. Even in Phelp's Diaries and reports he calls his Brigade the Iron Brigade. Men outside of the Phelp's Brigade called them the Iron Brigade, hence the reason they called them "Iron Brigade of the East" and "Iron Brigade of the West" to avoid confusion. During the War both were very Well Know and very well respected, the one Iron Brigade of the west should not be remembered now as the only Iron Brigade, or as you have put it, THE Iron Brigade.

According to a report from William Fox of the 107th NY he states that: (Who was not a member of the First Iron Brigade)

'''“The brigade that was composed of the 22nd New York, 24th New York, 30th New York, 14th Regiment [New York State Militia], and 2nd U.S. Sharpshooters was the first to be called the “Iron Brigade” because of its brave fighting at South Mountain and Antietam”'Italic text''

I do this because I love History, and hate to see history changed or in the this case, forgotten. Just because most of the regiments were disbanded shouldn't take away from the fact that they were The First Iron Brigade, and were so until 1863. So if we think like the rest of historians we might as well not say that the entire Western Iron Brigade was from the west, because in 1864 they had a couple none Western Units placed in the brigade, even though for the majority they were all westerners. As for the page, I had information on Both of the Iron Brigades up there, two sections for the Eastern and Western Iron Brigades, and links on both of them to be directed to their main page. I don't see why you have such a problem with it. I thought Wikipedia was here to expand knowledge and help people learn!? My original page had both! I feel like someone else is making this personal about the Iron Brigade.. I'm just here to try and show people Forgotten history, because members of the "Second" Iron Brigade were politicians and distorted history to gain better political acclaim. Especially the totally historical inaccurate book Col. Dawes wrote after the war, were his reports all go against every report written by the other generals at the battle.

All I was Proposing was having it where when you Searched Iron Brigade, both come up. And again, yes my Iron Brigade page showed BOTH. It was in alphabetical order.

--Frank Ruiz —Preceding comment was added at 13:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Tom Clemens link
The Link to Tom's article is dead. Not sure if the webpage has been moved or is now defunct. Scott Mingus 16:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Works OK for me as of now. Hal Jespersen 00:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Western Iron Brigade


text:
Talk:Re-established Apostolic Mission Church

Sometimes this name had been used instead of Restored Apostolic Mission Church Dutch Herder 20:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


text: User talk:70.81.118.93

title: User talk:70.81.118.93


text:
User talk:Kristk17

TussVik
Tussvik is a wery small place in norway. I wouldent even call it a place. I would call it a dumbster. In WW2 they knew that in Tussvik there was no sign of intellegent life. so they did not bother to attack it. It was a to easy target ! But in Ramstaddal ( known as Ramstaddal Badeland ) They grabbed a sword and figth off the Germans ! !! :D

title: User talk:Kristk17


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Andrew's Junior School

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep or merge. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Saint Andrew's Junior School
More primary school cruft. Dunc|☺ 20:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * keep' all of these please dunc why do you keep on doing this? Yuckfoo 20:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well firstly because it's unnotable cruft, secondly because it needs to be demonstrated that attempts to subvert vfd and intimidate voters by organising votes to keep is wrong. There was a previous concensus to delete unnnotable primary schools and for good reason. Now whether its an intentional stance or not, you get the yes men to come along and vote for you. Dunc|☺ 20:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Please consult WP:POINT & WP:civ. Double Blue  (Talk) 14:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yeah, Dunc. Until this gets solved in the Schools policy, it makes no sense to keep adding them on here. jglc | t | c 20:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, and resist attempts to subvert vfd and intimidate voters by flooding it with hostile nominations. Kappa 21:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, although I think from a reader-friendly point of view this group of related schools that share a name would probably be better served merged into a single article. DS1953 21:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and resist attempts to subvert vfd and keep worthless articles. --Carnildo 21:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Utterly non-notable; article is complete schoolcruft. Hermione1980 22:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Saint Andrew's School, then delete. This "article" is a single sentence, and were it on any other subject there would not be a host of keep votes. Also, Kappa's suggestion that this is an attempt to subvert VfD is out of line. This article is a perfectly acceptable candidate for deletion due to a lack of content.  This actually should qualify for speedy because it only gives information that is readily available in the article's title. I would advise a little less rhetoric and a little more reasoning on the article's qualities, rather than its subject matter. --Scimitar 22:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: If it was about the article, Dunc could have used a cleanup tag, or gone ahead and merged it. Kappa 00:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment:From wikipedia's policy page on vanity articles: Usually, vanity authors write about themselves, their significant others, or their high schools (italics mine). Simply being about a school does not make that article immune to VfD. --Scimitar 22:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete, schoolcruft, and resist attempts to subvert vfd and intimidate voters by flooding it with hostile keep votes and comments. RickK 23:31, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Please do something useful instead. CalJW 00:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete Please write something useful instead. There are dozens of reasons for this to be deleted.  It is vanity.  It is a non-exclusive name.  It has no useful content.  Then again, I'm actually reading the article.  Do the Schoolwatch people do the same?  Geogre 02:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable schools cruft. JamesBurns 03:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see nothing notable about this school. What makes it different from millions of other primary schools? NatusRoma 03:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to city article. I would think that the nominator would find the process of Merging to be easier then putting these on VfD. Did anyone look at Saint Andrew's School which has no text and only pictures and external links? Vegaswikian 06:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * To me, Merging this with Saint Andrew's School seems to be the best course of action right now. That article looks a little starved (and probably qualifies for a speedy deletion) right now. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * keep or merge with Saint Andrew's School. Good stub. Nothing wrong with it. The last 70 or so school deletion discussions that have reached a conclusion at the time of writing have all ended in keep (one article about a school playing field was merged).  WP:SCH contains good advice on how to avoid fruitless school deletion discussions.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. Double Blue  (Talk) 14:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * keep. I have to point out Saint Andrew's School does not even exist as an entity, and actually needs removal overtime.--Huaiwei 14:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Why do you say Saint Andrew's School does not exist?  Double Blue  (Talk) 17:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That's because the so-called "St. Andrew's group of schools" merely describes a group of affiliated schools. It is not one educational institution, the same way Anglo-Chinese School actually dosent exist as one insitution either. There are many other similar groups of schools with affiliations, such as the schools in the Rafflesian umbrella (Raffles Institution, Raffles Junior College, Raffles Girls' School (Secondary) etc. Unless schools actually merge into one, like what happened with Hwa Chong Institution, it makes little sense to be talking about a brand name instead of the various institutions represented.--Huaiwei 17:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Los Angeles Unified School District is a group of affiliated schools. University of Oxford is a group of affiliated colleges. The United States of America is a group of affiliated states. Saint Andrew's School share a principal, site, and management with its affiliated schools and if these articles are merged, is the best place for them. Double Blue  (Talk) 18:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm....not really. SAJS's principal is Mrs Wai Yin Pryke. SASS's is Mrs Belinda Charles. SAJC's Mrs Lim Chye Tin. SAJC's new campus is still being constructed as we speak, and currently is located away from the other schools. We have other affiliated schools moving to neighbouring sites, but that dosent mean the school has merged into one. For clear definitions of the status of Singapore schools, it is far better to refer to the School information Service of Singapore's Ministry of Education page instead, because so long that these schools are listed seperately there, they are still officially considered seperate institutions.--Huaiwei 19:01, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I goofed on using the term "principal" but the rest is true. Perhaps the head of SAS is still termed "warden"? Anyway, it's not necessary for the physical schools to be merged for the there to be an article on Saint Andrew's School. Furthermore, Page 4 of the history of Saint Andrew's School and others show these schools all developed from the same institution. We have verged from the focus of discussion of this page. My point is that SAS page would be the site of merger of SAJS, if necessary. Double Blue  (Talk) 20:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns, but this phenomena of schools sharing the same heritage, or having split off from the same institution, is still not unique enough to warrant special treatment, at least in the Singaporean context. We do have several schools with different school names, yet are closely affiliated, and it is not always practical to lump them together (for eg, my former sch, Montfort Secondary School, is affiliated to St. Gabriel's Secondary School and Assumption English school, along with the associated primary/junior schools. What shall we call this unified entity, then? In addition, all these schools are Catholic schools, which are in turn affiliated to all other Catholic schools in Singapore. Where do we draw the line?). I personally feel that each school should have its own entry, provided they have substaintial material which are encyclopedic.--Huaiwei 20:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The current article is lacking because of systemic bias, not because its non-notable. How is it going to grow if you keep killing it off when they are young? -- Natalinasmpf 15:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or expand/rewrite. — Instantnood 19:38, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:58, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
 * Keep. I find it sad that Duncharris (Dunc) has practically admitted to breaching WP:POINT simply because he doesn't agree with the recent trend toward keeping schools.  -- Un focused 04:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Vsion 06:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. -Da 'Sco Mon 08:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Valid stub. SchmuckyTheCat 15:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Mailer Diablo 15:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep RJH 16:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yet another so-called article that harms wikipedia by being totally useless. Indrian 04:10, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Quale 18:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Saint Andrew's School and expand that one instead. StopTheFiling 18:08, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Saint Andrew's School. While we are on the subject, pull in Saint Andrew's Secondary School and Saint Andrew's Junior College and put it all in one page. Those pages whould also be up for deletion too, Speedy in fact. I feel that this does not warrant having 4 seperate pages with lack of detail. By the way, most of the pictures in the template don't apply to this school. Huaiwei, I understand what you are talking about there, but the 3 schools were originally one school ever since its founding (1862) until the 1970s or 80s when the 3 schools then split. So in essence, they are actually the one and the same school. This is not the same as brother/sister school affiliation (eg St. Andrew's and St. Margaret's) or affiliation by religious movement (Fairfield Methodist and Paya Lebar Methodist) or branch schools (Anglo Chinese School (Independent) and Anglo Chinese School (Barker Road)). I was from St. Andrew's, by the way. Sandstorm6299 14:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .


text: User talk:80.44.97.197

title: User talk:80.44.97.197


text:
Quelimane

Quelimane is a seaport in Mozambique. It is the administrative capital of the Zambezia Province and the province's largest city, and stands 25 km from the mouth of the Rio dos Bons Sinais (or "River of the Good Signs"). The river was named when Vasco da Gama, on his way to India, reached it and saw "good signs" that he was on the right path. The town was the end point of David Livingstone's west-to-east crossing of south-central Africa in 1856. Portuguese is the official language of Mozambique, and many residents of the areas surrounding Quelimane speak Portuguese. The most common local language is Chuabo. Quelimane, along with much of Zambezia Province, is extremely prone to floods during Mozambique's rainy season.

Pre-colonial era
The town originated as a Swahili trade centre, and then grew as a slave market of the Indian Ocean slave trade. Quelimane was founded by Muslim traders (see Kilwa Sultanate) and was one of the oldest towns in the region.

Etymology
The origins of the name 'Quelimane' are obscure. One tradition alleges that Vasco da Gama, in 1498, inquired about the name of the place from some inhabitants labouring in the fields outside the settlement. Thinking he was asking what they were doing, they simply replied kuliamani ('we are cultivating').

An alternative explanation is that when the Portuguese reached the settlement, they were welcomed by a notable Arab, or half Arab, who acted as interpreter between them and the natives. The name which the Portuguese applied to this individual, and his settlement, was 'Quelimane' (pronounced Kelimãn), because in the corrupt Arabic spoken on the East African coast 'Kalimãn' is the word for 'Interpreter'. In Swahili it is 'Mkalimani'.

In 1761, the settlement became a town. Until 1853 trade was forbidden to any other than Portuguese. Sisal plantations were organized by Swiss planters in the beginning of the 20th century, namely Joseph Émile Stucky de Quay. The town started to grow and attracted several communities from different backgrounds, including Muslims and Indians, and new infrastructure was built by the Portuguese authorities. Its busy port had tea, grown and processed in the district of Zambézia (particularly important in the region around Gurúè, formerly Vila Junqueiro), as its major export. Coconut was also produced and processed in the city. By 1970, Quelimane had 71,786 inhabitants.

Independence
Mozambique became independent from Portugal in 1975, after the April 1974 Carnation Revolution at Lisbon. Although its location on the Rio dos Bons Sinais is less important today than in the past, Quelimane remains a major town with a large hospital, two cathedrals, a mosque, and a public university for teachers. Due to its heat, humidity, and distance from the beach, Quelimane is not among Mozambique's major tourist destinations. However, its status as a provincial capital and the fourth-largest city in Mozambique and the increasing ease of access by plane (Linhas Aéreas de Moçambique runs flights) and road contribute to a small but relatively steady stream of visitors. In addition, Quelimane is home to branches of many international NGOs, and frequent visits from foreign aid consultants, workers, and government officials also contribute to the economy. The city received a further boost when Quelimane hosted the Ninth Annual Frelimo Party Convention in November 2006. After decades of municipal decline, the current mayor, Manuel de Araujo, is reportedly overseeing a renewed civic effort at economic and infrastructural restoration.

Tropical Cyclones

 * Cyclone Filao in 1988 made landfall near Quelimane, causing many deaths. The damage was also the heaviest from this storm in Quelimane.
 * Cyclone Nadia in 1994 struck the northern coast of Mozambique, including Quelimane.
 * Cyclone Bonita in 1996 struck the northern coast of Mozambique 2 years after Nadia.
 * Cyclone Hudah in 2000 made landfall in Northern Mozambique after making landfall in Madagascar.
 * Cyclone Idai affected Quelimane as a tropical depression in 2019.
 * Severe Tropical Storm Chalane in 2020 was a category 1-equivalent cyclone that made landfall in Madagascar and northern Mozambique before moving across Southern Africa, into the South Atlantic, and then dissipating.
 * Cyclone Freddy made landfall near Quelimane in the 2022–23 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season after crossing over from the Australian region and making landfall in Madagascar and again in Mozambique. This storm caused tons of damages and fatalities for everywhere it impacted.

Places of worship
Among the places of worship, they are predominantly Christian churches and temples: Roman Catholic Diocese of Quelimane (Catholic Church), (Reformed Church in Mozambique (World Communion of Reformed Churches), Igreja Presbiteriana de Moçambique (World Communion of Reformed Churches), Convenção Baptista de Moçambique (Baptist World Alliance), Universal Church of the Kingdom of God, Assemblies of God, Zion Christian Church. There are also Muslim mosques.

Climate
Quelimane has a tropical savanna climate (Köppen climate classification Aw).

Twin towns — Sister cities
Quelimane is twinned with:
 * 🇷🇪 Le Port, Réunion

title: Quelimane


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon zimmerman

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Duncharris ("an ugly child with small hands and a girlish figure") --cesarb 01:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jon zimmerman
Yet another anonymous personal attack on some random, non-notable subject. Delete and we really need to get these speedied. jglc | t | c 20:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holymead Junior school

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep or merge. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Holymead Junior school
Another quality article about a primary school. Dunc|☺ 20:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * keep but please send to be cleaned up Yuckfoo 20:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yeah, Dunc. Until this gets solved in the Schools policy, it makes no sense to keep adding them on here. jglc | t | c 20:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, another fixable article about a primary school. Kappa 20:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, another content-free primary-school article. --Carnildo 21:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Article might be able to be expanded, but right now it's a schoolcruft stub. Hermione1980 22:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The user who created it only made this one article, and he/she did it more than a month ago. I have difficulty seeing expansion anytime soon, in the meantime it is nearly free of content. --Scimitar 22:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, another vanity stub about a primary school. RickK 23:34, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep We should have articles on all schools. CalJW 00:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Until there is a consensus policy, not listing school articles of zero worth like this one on VfD would mean that they would all be kept. No more trash substubs on indistinguishable entities.  Authors of these articles aren't even trying to inform or give the slightest indication of what makes their subject worth knowing about.  These things should not be kept, as they're not articles, no matter the consensus (to be reached on February 30th, I think) on schools. Geogre 02:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even the mention of the filming of the scene from the Casualty television show doesn't merit a separate article. NatusRoma 03:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete not even worth a merge. Vegaswikian 06:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even the notability proponents should be satisfied with this because the grounds have been used as a setting for a major TV series. And see WP:SCH on how to aviod these fruitless discussions. Needs cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * So if my house were to be used as the major setting of a tv series, would it deserve an article? Indrian 04:12, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * You mean if it were used as the setting of an episode in a major TV series? Certainly! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. Double Blue  (Talk) 14:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:01, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
 * Keep. Schools belong in Wikipedia.   Un focused 04:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep.-Da 'Sco Mon 08:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep SchmuckyTheCat 15:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep RJH 16:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am once again disguted by the knee-jerk reactions that appear to be on display here.  This is not an article, therefore it should not be kept under any circumstances.  If the original authors are too lazy to provide any useful information on the subject, more responsible users should not let the page stand and reflect poorly on the project. Indrian 04:14, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't be too hard on the original authors, they're only kids. Kappa 10:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment There seems to be an element of extreme immediatism here. Even the original article as VfD'd was an article and gave the school's name, type, location, head teacher's name, a list of teachers and helpers, and a list of classes and clubs.  Not bad for preteens, as Kappa says.  The article only needed a little cleanup, a task which has been undertaken by Kappa, DoubleBlue and CalJW.  The article now contains the Casualty reference and summarises the OFSTED report.  It's now a very useful article about this urban primary school and a good refutation of the claim that school stubs are unencyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I know that you and many others consider these additions improvements, and I always admire users who vote to keep and actually make efforts to improve the articles in question, but I do not see these improvements as substanative. Adding more facts about a subject and improving an article can be two very different things.  An encyclopedia is supposed to sift through the facts and summarize the important aspects of a topic, not just collect random bits of factual information.  This article now has more information, but it still does not provide information that makes it a useful contribution to an encyclopedia. Indrian 17:26, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with your perception that the article isn't worth keeping and the improvements are nothing much. What concerned me was solely your description of the votes to keep as "knee-jerk reactions" and the suggestion that it was the duty of responsible editors to delete the article.  Actually that isn't even consistent with our deletion policy.  While I can accept that an article may appear to some to be beyond hope, your comment didn't seem to allow for the fact that other editors do not share your view of this particular article and, making an honest effort to improve the article, don't deserve to be treated with disgust or disdain. We may differ in our opinions, but we are all working towards the same end. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This I do realize, and I am sorry if my comments seemed a bit too harsh to you. Indrian 18:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Quale 18:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .


text:
Talk:Province of Avellino

some cities need pages created for disambiguation.

Selachoidei
From the Main sights section:"The Selachoidei National Gallery at Avellino houses one of the largest collections of cartilaginous fishes in the country."

The wikilink to Selachoidei in the above seems to cause some confusion (see eg Talk:Chondrichthyes - 2nd post) as it used to redirect to Chondrichthyes without explanation. I've changed it to point to Shark (which at least refers to Selachii in its lead), but I'm not sure that is enough. It might be better to remove the wikilinking altogether, or start a stub article for the museum and link the whole name to that. The italian article of this name and this page from the regional tourist board may help establish an article (but I'm in no rush to do that myself). Also, I'm thinking it would be better to use the italian name Galleria nazionale dei Selachoidei. Any thoughts?TuxLibNit (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Province of Avellino


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clockhouse Junior School

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep or merge. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Clockhouse Junior School
See also: Votes for deletion/Clockhouse Primary school

Yet another article on a unnotable primary school. Dunc|☺ 20:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * keep this too it is a fair stub Yuckfoo 20:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment: Yeah, Dunc. Until this gets solved in the Schools policy, it makes no sense to keep adding them on here. jglc | t | c 20:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, good stub. Don't see any reason not to hang on to this part of the sum of human knowledge. Kappa 20:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * So's my phonebook but that's going into Wikipedia, no is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calton (talk • contribs) 03:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Unverifiable. copvio Kappa 21:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Another article stating how average the a school is. --Carnildo 21:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Mild schoolcruft. Stub that gives minimal information. Hermione1980 22:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, schoolcruft. School vanity is an unnecessary part of the sum of human knowledge (not that trying to create such is a goal of Wikipedia, despite contentions to the contrary).  RickK 23:35, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that wikipedia is not trying to compile and distribute the sum of human knowledge? 01:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) Kappa 01:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If you really believed that it were, Kappa, you would never have voted delete on a single solitary article. RickK 04:37, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why would you ever say such a thing— are you conveniently dismissing votes on articles which are blatant nonsense or acts of vandalism? Your comment is unreasonable.  —RaD Man (talk) 22:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If you were consistant, you would think that even nonsense and acts of vandalism are all parts of the sum of human knowledge. RickK 21:26, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL, I wouldn't want it to be kept in the article space, possibly it could be transwikied to "wikivandilism" or somewhere. User:Iasson would be the expert. Kappa 21:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep We should have articles on all schools. CalJW 00:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Is there anything that sets this school apart from others, except its name? The authors don't tell us, if there is. Geogre 02:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This school is simply average, and thus simply unencyclopedic. NatusRoma 03:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yet another school. Merge into London Borough of Havering or Delete. --Calton | Talk 03:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge as above. Vegaswikian 06:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with London Borough of Havering. If this school is notable it is only at a very local level. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge with London Borough of Havering.  Good stub. I like to see attention paid to OFSTED reports. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. Double Blue  (Talk) 14:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Non-notability not established by nominator.  —RaD Man (talk) 17:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:03, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
 * Keep Schools belong on Wikipedia. Stubs take time to grow.  -- Un focused 04:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. We know all the arguments now, and WP:SCH seems to have failed. --Carnildo 05:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. The success of WP:SCH can be judged by the sheer number of merge or keep votes for school articles.  Overwhelming, I've never seen anything like this on VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. -Da 'Sco Mon 08:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep SchmuckyTheCat 15:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with what Unfocused said. -CunningLinguist 16:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep — RJH 16:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Also, I don't think WP:SCH can be judged as a success just because it managed to rally the pro-school hordes. It should have resolved the issue, not simply given carte blanche to any vanity page writer to put in an article consisting of "Non-Notable High is a highschool in Nebraska". As it is now, any school article, regardless of content or quality, will be vociferiously defended by inclusionists. --Scimitar 19:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. VfD isn't a place for discussing article quality or for getting rid of poorly written articles. If an article is bad, work on improving it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Another worse than useless page on another unremarkable educational institution.  It is a shame that there are a large number of users that appear to provide knee-jerk votes to keep all articles with the word school in them regardless of their encyclopedic value. Indrian 04:18, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Quale 18:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .