text:
Labyrinth: The Computer Game

Labyrinth: The Computer Game is a 1986 graphic adventure game developed by Lucasfilm Games and published by Activision. Based on the fantasy film Labyrinth, it tasks the player with navigating a maze while solving puzzles and evading dangers. The player's goal is to find and defeat the main antagonist, Jareth, within 13 real-time hours. Unlike other adventure games of the period, Labyrinth does not feature a command-line interface. Instead, the player uses two scrolling "word wheel" menus on the screen to construct basic sentences.

Labyrinth was the first adventure game created by Lucasfilm. The project was led by designer David Fox, who invented its word wheels to avoid the text parsers and syntax guessing typical of text-based adventure games. Early in development, the team collaborated with author Douglas Adams in a week-long series of brainstorming sessions, which inspired much of the final product. Labyrinth received positive reviews and, in the United States, was a bigger commercial success than the film upon which it was based. Its design influenced Lucasfilm's subsequent adventure title, the critically acclaimed Maniac Mansion.

This game is entirely different from another game based on the same movie entitled "Labyrinth: Maō no Meikyū" ("Maze of the Goblin King"), released exclusively in Japan for the Famicom and MSX in 1987, developed by Atlus and published by Tokuma Shoten.

Overview
Labyrinth: The Computer Game is a graphic adventure game in which the player maneuvers a character through a maze while solving puzzles and evading dangers. It is an adaptation of the 1986 film Labyrinth, many of whose events and characters are reproduced in the game. However, it does not follow the plot of the film. At the beginning, the player enters their name, sex and favorite color: the last two fields determine the appearance of the player character. Afterward, a short text-based adventure sequence unfolds, wherein the player enters a movie theater to watch the film Labyrinth. The game then changes to a graphic adventure format. Jareth, the main antagonist, appears on the projection screen and transports the protagonist to a labyrinthine prison.

The player's goal is to locate and destroy Jareth within 13 real-time hours; otherwise, the protagonist will be trapped in the maze forever. While traveling the maze, the player passes through a series of scrolling hallways that contain doors, enemies and other things. A "radar" bar on the screen allows the player to see each hallway in miniature form: the locations of all doorways, items and characters in a given hallway are displayed. Unlike other adventure games of the period, Labyrinth does not feature a command-line interface. Instead of typing commands, the player selects them from two scrolling "word wheels", one for verbs and one for nouns. For example, the verb "congratulate" may be selected in one wheel, and the noun "Jareth" in the other: this inputs the command "congratulate Jareth". Based on the player's items and location, the available verbs and nouns change context-sensitively.

Development
Lucasfilm Games began to design Labyrinth: The Computer Game in 1985. Company head George Lucas had requested a tie-in video game for the movie of the same name, which was under production at Lucasfilm. As was common with Lucasfilm Games projects, Lucas himself provided very little direction to the team. Labyrinth was the first licensed game developed by the company: earlier products, such as Rescue on Fractalus! and The Eidolon, had been original intellectual properties. According to project leader David Fox, working with a license "frees you up in some ways and restricts you, too". With their adaptation, the team was not pressured to reuse events and characters from the Labyrinth film, but they "felt obligated" to follow the source material. Because they saw the film as an adventure story, they chose to set their adaptation in the adventure game genre. Fox conversely disliked the genre's then-reliance on text parsers and syntax guessing, and so he created the word wheel menus as a replacement. They were meant to supply "a limited set of words that still let you do a lot of things", in order to streamline the game without hampering the player's freedom. The game's visual design was shared by Lucasfilm's Habitat, a massively multiplayer online game under production at the time.

Early in development, the game's team was screened a rough cut of the film. Afterward, they were sent to London by Lucasfilm management for a one-week brainstorming session with Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Adams had worked previously with Infocom, during the development of his book's 1984 video game adaptation. Also present at the meetings were writer Christopher Cerf (a friend of the film's director, Jim Henson) and Brenda Laurel of Activision, the game's publisher. The team worked extensively with Adams during this period. Laurel later wrote: "Every day a fresh blast of his wild and intelligent humor stoked up the creativity of the team". In her view, the pinnacle of the meetings was Adams' idea for the opening sequence. He suggested a reference to The Wizard of Oz's famous transition from black-and-white to color: a transition from a text-based format to a graphical one.

Fox was given the job of taking notes during the trip. Although he had hoped for a complete design to emerge from the meetings, he returned from London with only "sheets and sheets of ideas", through which he sifted to find usable concepts. All of the material influenced the game, and many of Adams' suggestions were used. Retrospectively, Fox felt that the opening sequence was a mistake: he called it "tedious" and believed that it alienated potential fans. Labyrinth was released in 1986 for the Commodore 64, Apple II and MSX.

Reception
In the United States, Labyrinth was more commercially successful than the film upon which it was based. Commodore Magazine's Mark Cotone lauded the game's puzzle design, detailed graphics and newcomer-friendly interface. He believed that experienced players would enjoy its depth and challenging puzzles. Keith Campbell of Commodore User praised its animation and dubbed it "a superb game"—which he found unusual, given its status as a tie-in product. Nevertheless, Campbell hesitated to call it an adventure game, and he wrote that the word wheels were "rather tedious" for genre veterans. Roy Wagner of Computer Gaming World summarized Labyrinth as a "very well done [game] with an excellent user interface".

Writing for Computer & Video Games, Matthew Woodley praised the game's variety and interface. While he disliked its long loading times, he believed that they were "a small price to pay for such a brilliant game". However, Labyrinth was criticized by the three reviewers of Zzap!64. Although he praised its visuals, co-reviewer Paul Sumner called the game too slow-paced for an action title and too simplistic for an adventure. Co-reviewer Julian Rignall considered it to be boring and "a real disappointment", given Lucasfilm's strong track record.

Legacy
Labyrinth was the first adventure game produced by Lucasfilm, which became a critically acclaimed and commercially successful developer in the genre. The game's technology and mechanics influenced the company's subsequent title Maniac Mansion, whose "SCUMM" engine was reused in many Lucasfilm adventure games. The word wheels were a predecessor to that game's point-and-click interface. Gary Winnick, an artist for Labyrinth, went on to lead the production of Maniac Mansion with Ron Gilbert. Fox contributed to Maniac Mansion as well, and he later directed Lucasfilm's Zak McKracken and the Alien Mindbenders. A retrospective feature by Australian video game talk show Good Game regarded Labyrinth as a solid first attempt, but as inferior to "the real classics" made afterward by Lucasfilm.

title: Labyrinth: The Computer Game


text:
User talk:Altsounds

Hi there, thanks for your interest in Wikipedia. I would suggest reading External links. We discourage people adding links to their own site ("Adding links to one's own page is strongly discouraged."), as it is seen as "linkspamming". Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to Wikipedia. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 02:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

This is stupid. This is what the article says:

"A few parties now appear to have a spambot capable of spamming wikis from several different wiki engines, analogous to the submitter scripts for guestbooks and blogs. They have a database of a few hundred wikis. Typically they insert external links. Like blog spam, their aim is to improve their search engine rankings, not to directly advertise their product.

If you see a bot inserting external links, please consider checking the other language wikis to see if the attack is widespread. If it is, please contact a sysop on the meta-wiki: they can put in a site-wide text filter. Any meta sysop can edit the site-wide spam blacklist to add or remove the pattern that are recognized by the filter, with the changes taking effect immediately. New links can also be added to the list if a new spammer should start making the rounds.

Sysops are authorised to block unauthorised bots on sight. Spam bots should be treated equivalently to vandalbots. Edits by spambots constitute unauthorised defacement of websites, which is against the law in many countries, and may result in complaints to ISPs and (ultimately) prosecution."

We DO NOT use spam bots and never have done or never will do. We run a quality music resource site which I feel is VERY pertinent to folks searching up info on bands and record labels. NOWHERE in your external links guide does it say that this is not allowed only that it is dissallowed by spamming i.e. getting a computer to do it for you. I put a staff volunteer on this project as I read up on it first to check it would be ok. Based on your documentation it is ok and I wish all our links to be re-instated. We are a quality resource trying to better another quality resource and are getting penalized. We have also been told by others on here that we are not a BIG enough website!!!!!!! What does that have to do with anything?? We have photos, band info, songs plus so much more available that would be VERY interesting to someone researching your bands so what does size have to do with anything???

Please speak with whoever you need to about this and get it sorted out for us because we are being penalized for no reason. If you're not allowed to post external links why is the section there??? If your saying we're not allowed to post links back to our own website then I will just get somebody not involved with altsounds to post the links hence making it not links back to their own website. Sorry for sounding bitchy but I am still very annoyed at what you guys have done to our hard work.

Please advise.
 * User:JYolkowski and I have probably done all the necessary explaining here and at User talk:68.38.148.76. We don't link to music.download.com, Purevolume, MP3.com, or any of the other music download sites because the artists put those links on their websites; so there's no point in making an exception for less-well-known sites.  If the artist wants listeners to download their songs, then that artist or that label will say where on their website.  We can't make exceptions for sites that have only been up for two months, have an Alexa rank of 367,941, and are looking for publicity.  Alexa doesn't think your site is very pertinent at all; "big" only matters in terms of its web traffic rankings, which services like Alexa provide.  Spamming doesn't have to be done by a bot; it can be done by a human seeking widespread promotion for their site, their friend's site, or whatever.  External links sections are necessary because 99 times out of 100 they link to the artist's official website, and usually also their site on their label, sometimes a Myspace page too (note that Myspace is the 24th most popular site on the internet - Wikipedia's the 58th - and Myspace has an article on this site that has been kept without question) or a prominent fan site (e.g. a fan club).  As for policies, External links answers all of your questions for you when it says, "Wikipedia disapproves strongly of links that are added for advertising purposes. Adding links to one's own page is strongly discouraged. The mass adding of links to any website is also strongly discouraged, and any such operation should be raised at the Village Pump or other such page and approved by the community before going ahead."  So even if you get somebody else to do it, it's still spam. --Idont Havaname 19:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Altsounds
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam);
 * and you must always:
 * 1) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Conflict of Interest. -- Herby talk thyme 14:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. -- Herby talk thyme 14:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well potentially being penalized by search engines. -- Herby talk thyme 14:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Altsounds
A tag has been placed on Altsounds requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ged UK (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Confused Newb
Eeek I am not sure what has happened here but my page appears to have been deleted :( It's so hard to do things on this site as valuable time trhat is spent on articles just gets deleted.  How can I go about helping to add valuable content without it getting removed?  I only have a small amount of spare time and wasting that writing stuff for Wikipedia that gets deleted within an hour is wasteful for me.  Could someone please offer some help and guidance to a newb?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altsounds (talk • contribs) 14:54, 7 Jun 2008

 * OK - in practice you didn't write anything - you copied it from the website concerned and so it was a copyright violation. Equally you continued to place links to the website until your final warning.  Bear these points in mind please.
 * To help you find some info check the links here. Thanks

Welcome!

Hello,, 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: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -- Herby talk thyme 14:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

My confusion here is more at the fact that everything I do keeps getting deleted. Last week I posted links on certain band pages to original and relevant interviews with band members that will help fans of that band understand more etc. Now I look and all those link contributions have been removed HOWEVER other links linking to other interviews are still present. Why is this the case and why can other sites with relevant content be listed but Altsounds cannot? SUPER SUPER SUPER CONFUSED

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

title: User talk:Altsounds


text:
Pretties for You

Pretties for You is the debut studio album by American rock band Alice Cooper, released on June 25, 1969, by Straight Records. "Alice Cooper" referred to the band and not its lead singer Vincent Furnier. The album has a psychedelic style to it and the group had yet to develop the more concise hard rock sound that they would become famous for.

Most of the tracks feature unusual time signatures and arrangements, jarring syncopation, expressive dynamics, sound effects, and an eclectic range of music influences. A few songs, such as "Levity Ball", show the influence of Syd Barrett-era Pink Floyd, with whom the band hung out during the British group's U.S. tour. Alice Cooper guitarist Glen Buxton stated he could listen to Barrett's guitar playing for hours on end.

The artwork for this album is a painting by Edward Beardsley. It was originally hanging on the wall of the living room in Frank Zappa's house, and his wife Gail Zappa stated that it was later stolen from them.

Pretties for You was a critical and commercial failure, briefly appearing on the Billboard Top 200, and none of its songs have ever been played live by Cooper since the release of the band's breakthrough album Love It to Death. The song "Reflected", Alice Cooper's first single, was later rewritten as "Elected", which features on their 1973 album Billion Dollar Babies.

Production
According to Alice Cooper's band manager Shep Gordon, when recording at Whitney Studios in Burbank, Frank Zappa left his brother in charge of recording while Zappa left the studio. Zappa returned later that day and informed them the album was finished, having only recorded the band rehearsing. Gordon states that there was no producer during recording, that the band had no complete songs written, that Zappa "didn't spend 5 minutes in the studio" and never asked to hear their material, and that the band's debut album was made up entirely of that rehearsal recording, aside from the live recording of "Levity Ball".

Reception
Lester Bangs of Rolling Stone felt that there were no "[hints] of life, spontaneity, joy, rage, or any kind of authentic passion or conviction". However, he stated that "within the context of [Alice Cooper's] self-imposed limitations, the album is listenable". He concluded the review by saying that "Alice Cooper's music is, for this reviewer at any rate, totally dispensable". Pretties for You won an award in Germany for "Best Arranged Album of 1969".

AllMusic's Stephen Thomas Erlewine feels that the album "was an earnest but flawed stab at psychedelia that occasionally caught fire".

Live covers
On November 8, 2015, the entire record was performed live at The Stone in NYC as part of Nick Didkovsky's residency there. Neal Smith, Dennis Dunaway and Cindy Smith Dunaway were in attendance. Dennis Dunaway joined the band for "Nobody Likes Me" as an encore, a song that was originally slated to be on the record.

Personnel

 * Alice Cooper band
 * Alice Cooper – lead vocals, harmonica
 * Glen Buxton – lead guitar
 * Michael Bruce – rhythm guitar, backing vocals, keyboards
 * Dennis Dunaway – bass guitar, backing vocals
 * Neal Smith – drums, backing vocals

title: Pretties for You


text:
Talk:Sandra Scoppttone

Vote for Deletion
This article was turned into a redirect as a result of a debate at Votes for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 02:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sandra Scoppttone


text:
Wikipedia:Peer review/L. Frank Baum/archive1

L. Frank Baum
I think this is a very good article (much of which was written by Woggly). I have gone in and added a bibliography of Baum's books, as well as a reference section with a couple of biographies of Baum I have read which pretty much verify everything in the article. I guess I would like some direction to get this article to FA status. --[[User:JonMoore|—Jo nMo ore  20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 02:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Some suggestions:
 * 1) Add more dates, try and improve on just saying "later"-what year was he married, what year did he move to South Dakota, add the year he wrote his first book (Father Goose (1899))
 * 2) Add something/a section about his literary style, context within other contemporary children's literature, and his influence, if possible.
 * 3) Move the "Miscellaneous anecdotes" section (i.e. trivia) to below the "Baum's politics" section (as it is the least important section)
 * 4) Perhaps a short description of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, after all it is what he is primarily remembered for-the memorable characters for example, and brief references to when it was adpated to theatre and cinema.
 * 5) A Lead section is usually required for a featured article, but in this case, I'm not sure the introduction needs to be any longer. Deus Ex 22:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


text: User talk:69.109.163.171

title: User talk:69.109.163.171


text:
User talk:Cruise

Image:Lida and Joseph.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Lida and Joseph.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  —♦♦ SʘʘTHING  (Я)  08:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)  —♦♦  SʘʘTHING  (Я)  08:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello. If you're still around, please note that I've moved material that was at homogeneity to homogeneity (stiatistics). The page could probably use some work. Homogeneity itself is now a disambiguation page. Michael Hardy 14:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Table Implications.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Table Implications.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigDT 11:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:CongressWarVote.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:CongressWarVote.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:AmiriyahCandy.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:AmiriyahCandy.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. 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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 06:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:IncarcerationGrowth.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:IncarcerationGrowth.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:FDRandJR1934.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:FDRandJR1934.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. 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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Variance 1.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Variance 1.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 06:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:True Variance 1.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:True Variance 1.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 06:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:True Variance 2.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:True Variance 2.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:True Variance 3.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:True Variance 3.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 06:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:True Variance 4.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:True Variance 4.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:True Variance 5.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:True Variance 5.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Hierarchical Scale.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Hierarchical Scale.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 06:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:McClelland (Bradburn).jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:McClelland (Bradburn).jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 06:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Amariyah B.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Amariyah B.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Cruise.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Cruise.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 07:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Cruise 1.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Cruise 1.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Unspecified source for Image:Lida Baarova.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lida Baarova.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. 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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 07:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Pamela Rogers.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Pamela Rogers.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 07:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:LetourneauB.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:LetourneauB.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Whip.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Whip.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Intestinal Crank.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Intestinal Crank.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Otakar Vavra.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Otakar Vavra.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Zorka Janu.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Zorka Janu.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Cekanka.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Cekanka.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Gibbon 4.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Gibbon 4.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Mary Letourneau.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mary Letourneau.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Karla Tucker.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Karla Tucker.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:McClelland.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:McClelland.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Wright.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Wright.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. 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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Cropped images
You do understand that just cropping an image does not allow you to licence it, right Dowew 07:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Supreme crime, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material without the permission of the author. As a copyright violation, Supreme crime appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Supreme crime has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Supreme crime and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Supreme crime with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Supreme crime.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. –Sarregouset (Talk) 19:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

File:Incarceration2.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Incarceration2.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 23:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

File:War West.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:War West.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

File:War State-Trait.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:War State-Trait.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

File:War East.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:War East.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

File:USCongressWarVote.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:USCongressWarVote.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:True Variance 6.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:True Variance 6.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

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, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Supermatrix 2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Supermatrix 2.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

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, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Supermatrix 3.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Supermatrix 3.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

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, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Supermatrix 4.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Supermatrix 4.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

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, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Normal Scale.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Normal Scale.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

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, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Parallel Scale.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Parallel Scale.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

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, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Qhistory1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Qhistory1.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

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, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Qhistory2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Qhistory2.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

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, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Qhistory3.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Qhistory3.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

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, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Qhistory4.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Qhistory4.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

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, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Qhistory5.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Qhistory5.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

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, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Qhistory6.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Qhistory6.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

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, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Gibbon 2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gibbon 2.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

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, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Lida Baarova Grave.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lida Baarova Grave.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

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, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Structural Differential.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Structural Differential.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

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, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Semantic Differntial 2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Semantic Differntial 2.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

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, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Stereographs (35).jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Stereographs (35).jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

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, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Stereographs (9).jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Stereographs (9).jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

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, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Supermatrix 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Supermatrix 1.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

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, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Damping Effect.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Damping Effect.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

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, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Structural Differential Shadow.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Structural Differential Shadow.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Amariyah Handprints.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Amariyah Handprints.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Amariyah Bomb Shelter.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Amariyah Bomb Shelter.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Amaryia Entry.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Amaryia Entry.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Amariyah Mother Holding Baby.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Amariyah Mother Holding Baby.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

File:IncarcerationDuration.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:IncarcerationDuration.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Incarceration.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Incarceration.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Lidabaarova.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Lidabaarova.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. 06:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Cruise! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Marc H. Ellis -

Nomination of Robert B. Ammons for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Robert B. Ammons, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Robert B. Ammons until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cruise


text:
IRT Nostrand Avenue Line

The IRT Nostrand Avenue Line is a rapid transit line of the A Division of the New York City Subway running under Nostrand Avenue in the New York City borough of Brooklyn. It is served by the train at all times and is also served by the  train during the daytime on weekdays.

History
The Dual Contracts, which were signed on March 19, 1913, were contracts for the construction and/or rehabilitation and operation of rapid transit lines in the City of New York. The contracts were "dual" in that they were signed between the City and two separate private companies (the Interborough Rapid Transit Company and the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company), all working together to make the construction of the Dual Contracts possible. The Dual Contracts promised the construction of several lines in Brooklyn. As part of Contract 3, the IRT agreed to build a subway line along Nostrand Avenue in Brooklyn.

The line was supposed to extend to Coney Island. The construction of the subway along Nostrand Avenue spurred real estate development in the surrounding areas. In September 1917, the line was projected to open at the end of 1918.

The Nostrand Avenue Line opened on August 23, 1920 at 12:40 a.m.

Proposed expansion
The line was planned to be extended to Marine Park, Brooklyn (at what is now Kings Plaza) under either Utica Avenue, using a brand-new line, or Nostrand Avenue and Flatbush Avenue. There were also alternate plans for the Nostrand Avenue Line to continue down Nostrand Avenue to Sheepshead Bay.

In December 1918, the New York Public Service Commission considered constructing a yard for the line near its terminal, and possibly acquiring trackage rights on the Manhattan Beach Branch of the Long Island Rail Road so service could run to Manhattan Beach and Brighton Beach, if the line were electrified.

In January 1919, the Public Service Commission decided that the Nostrand Avenue Line should be extended to Coney Island using the Manhattan Beach Branch. The extension would have meant that passengers wishing to get to Coney Island would not have to pay the double fare that was required to get there via the Brooklyn Rapid Transit lines. Previously, the construction of a yard south of Flatbush Avenue was considered, and the yard could be built in conjunction with the new extension. The Manhattan Beach Branch would have had to been electrified. The connection was estimated to cost $250,000. Two additional tracks would have been built along the Manhattan Beach right-of-way so that the other tracks could be used for freight. With the additional costs of the tracks the project would have cost $950,000.

The Nostrand Avenue line was planned to be extended in 1929 as part of the IND Second System. The line would have been extended as a subway to Kings Highway, and then as an elevated line to Avenue S at the cost of $7.4 million. South of Avenue S the line would continue to Voohries Avenue on a four-track structure shared with the proposed Utica Avenue Line for $3.2 million.

In 1939, the IRT Nostrand Avenue Line was planned to be extended to Voorhies Avenue in Sheepshead Bay as a subway to Avenue T and an elevated from there to Voorhies Avenue. In 1946, the New York City Board of Transportation issued a $1billion plan to extend subway service to the farthest reaches of the outer boroughs, and as part of the plan the line was again projected to extend to Voorhies Avenue.

On September 13, 1951, the Board of Estimate approved a plan put forth by the Board of Transportation that would cost $500 million. As part of the plan the Nostrand Avenue Line was to be extended to Voorhies Avenue in Sheepshead Bay.

In March 1954, the Transit Authority issued a $658 million construction program including the extension of the Nostrand Avenue Line to Avenue U, which would have cost $51.7 million.

The Nostrand Avenue Line was once again slated to be extended further south in 1968 as part of the newly created Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Program for Action. This was to have been several extensions to serve the then-burgeoning areas of Mill Basin and Spring Creek. The Rogers Junction on the IRT Eastern Parkway Line was a serious traffic bottleneck during the rush hours due to the IRT Nostrand Avenue Line tracks' at-grade junctions with the bi-level IRT Eastern Parkway Line. The Rogers Junction would have to be reconstructed with flying junctions to increase capacity for several extensions. The initial plan had the IRT Nostrand Avenue Line would be extended past Flatbush Avenue – Brooklyn College along Flatbush Avenue to a new modern terminal at Avenue U at Kings Plaza. This extension was projected to cost $60 million. Other plans had the line extended along Nostrand Avenue from Avenue H, where the exiting tunnel ends, to Sheepshead Bay at Avenue W or Voorhies Avenue; this second plan had been proposed as part of the line's original construction. The Nostrand Avenue plan, Route 29–C, which was approved by the Board of Estimate on June 3, 1969, would have had three stations added at Kings Highway, Avenue R, and Avenue W, with a storage yard constructed south of Avenue W.     The construction of either extension would have reduced delays and improved operational efficiency because Flatbush Avenue would not need to be a terminal any longer.

In the summer of 1972, the IRT Nostrand Avenue Line extension to Avenue W was being designed. By November 1974, the MTA projected that by 1993, the Nostrand Avenue extension would be open. Due to the 1975–76 fiscal crisis that affected the city, most of the remaining projects did not have funding, so they were declined. Expected to be completed by the mid-1970s and early 1980s, lines for the Program for Action had to be reduced or canceled altogether due to the 1970s fiscal crisis.

In 1968, and again in 1989, the MTA gave consideration to extending the Nostrand Avenue Line approximately 1000 ft beyond the Flatbush Avenue station to provide room for turnaround facilities to eliminate the operational restrictions caused by the current layout.

In October 2008, the Regional Plan Association in the report Tomorrow's Transit suggested that the Nostrand Avenue Line be extended two stops to Kings Highway as a way to improve travel times and reliability for subway service on the Brooklyn IRT.

In August 2016, it was reported that the MTA was looking into an extension of the IRT Nostrand Avenue Line along Flatbush Avenue to Marine Park, which would allow trains to serve Kings Plaza.

Extent and service
All services serve the entire line and make all stops.

Route description
The two tracks split off from the local tracks of the IRT Eastern Parkway Line and diverge away in the vicinity of Rogers Avenue at the Rogers Avenue Junction, turning south onto Nostrand Avenue to/from the Nostrand Avenue Line. Running beneath Nostrand Avenue, the line serves the neighborhoods of southern Crown Heights, Prospect Lefferts Gardens, Flatbush, East Flatbush, and the Brooklyn College area. The line's final station is Flatbush Avenue–Brooklyn College, where there is an unusual terminal setup. It is the only terminal station in the subway system at the end of a physical line that does not have an island platform, and it was built with two side platforms and two tracks to allow for a planned, but not carried out extension of the IRT Nostrand Avenue Line south towards Voorhies Avenue in Sheepshead Bay. The platforms are connected at the south end just past the bumper blocks (forming a "U" shape), mitigating what is otherwise an inefficient terminal design. This terminal setup is inefficient, and combined with the Rogers Avenue Junction's also-inefficient design (see below), this limits capacity on the line. Therefore, some rush hour and  trains run via the IRT New Lots Line.

The IRT Nostrand Avenue Line tunnels continue beyond the bumper blocks at Flatbush Avenue and Nostrand Avenue. They extend for several hundred feet to Avenue H. Up until about 2006, you could see the cemented over gratings extending down Nostrand Avenue. When a new building went up, the grates were removed. Prior to the building of the exit at the south end of the station, there was only a temporary wooden ramp connecting the platforms and the tunnels were actually visible to passengers.

Another factor limiting capacity on the line is the set up of the Rogers Avenue Junction, where trains can diverge from the IRT Eastern Parkway Line to the IRT Nostrand Avenue Line or continue on Eastern Parkway. Rogers Avenue Junction was built when the Nostrand Avenue Line was built, and it only connected the IRT Eastern Parkway Line local tracks to the Nostrand Avenue Line. From west to east between the Franklin Avenue station and the junction, the northbound local track descends to a lower level directly below the southbound local track. Then, the northbound express track, which is still on the upper level at this point, descends to the lower level directly below the southbound express track, creating a dual level two-over-two track layout.

At the junction, a switch on the upper level allows southbound 5 express trains to change to the local track, and a corresponding switch on the lower level allows 5 trains on the northbound local track to change to the express track. Directly to the east, all of the mainline tracks shift slightly to the north, and the Nostrand Avenue Line splits from the local tracks and head south. There is a closed tower at the south end of the southbound platform at the Franklin Avenue station.

This junction is a severe traffic bottleneck during rush hours, and rebuilding it would require massive construction including the tearing up of Eastern Parkway. In 1968, as part of the Program for Action, a rebuilding of the junction was planned in order to alleviate congestion. However, financial troubles caused the plan to be dropped.

title: IRT Nostrand Avenue Line


text:
Missouri Route 95

Route 95 is a highway in southern Missouri. Its northern terminus is at Route 32 at Lynchburg in Laclede County. Its southern terminus is at U.S. Route 160 at Lutie about 2.5 miles west of the Theodosia arm of Bull Shoals Lake in Ozark County.

A short 3.3 mi section forms a wrong-way concurrency with Route 5; Route 95 is marked as "North Route 95" but goes south at this location.

History
The section of Route 95 north of Wasola to Lutie was originally a section of Route 5A, a branch of Route 5.

title: Missouri Route 95