I'm wondering about the "Tex. Monthly" vs. "Texas Monthly". Can you point me to what source calls "Tex. Monthly" correct (per your edit summary)? Thanks. — Bellhalla 22:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Bluebook Rule 16.4 (Nonconsecutively Paginated Journals and Magazines): "Consult tables T.10 and T.13 to abbreviate the names of periodicals." Table T.10, Geographical Names, abbreviates "Texas" as "Tex." - Bulawdude 02:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history of the "Van Taylor" article I noticed you apparently have some sort of dispute over the record of Van Taylor, an Iraq war veteran who ran for U.S. congress. Well, don't you think if Captain Taylor had lied or embellished anything the news organizations would have found out and reported it. Besides details of his biography have appeared in other places other than his official campaign site. Here's one and here's another. -- Crevaner 14:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• All I ask is that people follow the rules, which includes reviewing and understanding the rules for Wikipedia biographies. A Texas Senate resolution is hardly proof of any fact, since they are designed to be puff pieces and are not reviewed by individual senators before adoption -- in fact, the Texas Legislature passed a resolution honoring the Boston Strangler for his efforts at "population control." Further, campaign websites are not sources: "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book." [1]. At first glance, the GIJobs website is basically a job service, not a reputable journalistic publication that has objective reporting as its primary purpose. "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible." [2] Also, certain people keep removing the link to the Hardball video; this was discussed and agreed that it was relevant to his bio. [3]

With all due respect, I don't think that an image of a coat of arms on the page clearly demonstrates the fact that it was used by an organization. The image simply makes it clear that someone at sometime painted the arms with the fimbration. A citation would be nice to prove that it was actually ever used by the group in question.--Eva ^bd 20:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I can see your point, although I believe the pictures were uploaded with permission of the society. I'll look for a citation. Thanks.

You uploaded a Texas Senate chamber image on the basis that it is not possible to create a free variant of it. Well, there are free images of the senate, so the image you uploaded will be deleted shortly due to an improper license. As that is a speedy criterion, it will be deleted without discussion. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bulawdude! 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. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 940 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the ((unreferencedBLP)) tag. Here is the article:

1. John P. Mabry - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Dunnam.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add ((di-replaceable fair use disputed)), without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mabry.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add ((di-replaceable fair use disputed)), without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Van-Taylor tv 28sep06 150.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Killer Ds, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killer Ds until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]