This user may have left Wikipedia. Rossrs has not edited Wikipedia since July 2015. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Main	Talk	Contributions	Useful things	Sandboxes	Gallery	Amusements

Archives
January–December 2005 January–April 2006 April–December 2006 January–June 2007 July–December 2007 January–June 2008 July–December 2008 January 2009 – February 2009 March 2009 – June 2009 July 2009 – December 2009 January 2010 – December 2010

Seeing the news out of Brisbane, I hope you and those you love are safe and not seriously affected. Take care! Cheers Tvoz/talk 18:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for thinking of me. I am safe, and my family and friends are safe, and none of us seriously affected, but it's very hard to comprehend what's happened here. Rossrs (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to hear that. You are, on my page, always "Ross from Brisbane", so I immediately thought of you when the truly frightening reports started reaching New York. Stay safe. Tvoz/talk 19:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear the above ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jack. Just got back from a volunteer station. The City Council was bussing volunteers to some of the stricken suburbs, but too many volunteers. I couldn't get near the place, and the roads are choked with people all out trying to help, which says something good about the community spirit, although it creates its own problems. I'll try again tomorrow. I checked to see that John has been editing, so he must be ok too. Rossrs (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is huge, bigger than Katrina; knocked right off the US-radar by Tucson, though. John's rather busy, as am I; we'll talk soon, and I'll fill you in. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to some reports, four times bigger than Katrina, at least in area, and the economic damage will be something to behold. I can understand the US focus being on Tucson. Yep, talk soon. I'll be here.  :-D Rossrs (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reviewedfairusedisputed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rossrs. You have new messages at Beyond My Ken's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hi, it's been awhile, hope all is well. Happy New Year to you and yours. I have a question that you might be able to answer. I've understood that movies and the like shouldn't be added to filmographies of actors until they were released to the public since things can change which I thought fell under WP:Crystal. An example, the Robert DeNiro article includes 2011 films that haven't been released yet. Lately it seems like a lot of films that are not released are being added to actors filmographies. The Avatar films 2 and 3 are constantly added. I got told on my talk page when removing films that were dated 2011–2014 that I was wrong to remove them and got reverted. Now to me it doesn't make sense to post films like this. The film can get cancelled, delayed etc. So what are your thoughts on this and would you mind pointing me to something, anything that will clear this up for me? Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes all is well, and the same is true of you and yours. Happy New Year too. I think it falls under WP:Crystal pretty clearly but I think you are also fighting against a fairly widespread practice. I think it's fair to remove them and reference back to WP:Crystal, but I'm not aware of any discussion. It may be worthwhile starting a discuss, perhaps at WP:ACTOR or even RfC if you don't get much reaction at ACTOR. To me it's very fancrufty in nature, that is to say Mr De Niro should be assessed for his completed work not for having his name attached to a project that may or may not eventuate. The problem is that there are a lot of people who like cruft in its various forms. Rossrs (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that settles it for me, I'm going to continue to remove such things since I've only had one editor complain. I know agree with you that there are a lot who go for cruft. Take a look at WP:ELPEREN's talk page. The Find a Grave site is spammed all over the place. The same goes for imdb.com. I don't know how it got started to allow these two sites to be continually put into EL but now to get it to stop will take magic or something. We can't even get told a location to attempt another try for a consensus though I doubt one will be had since for some reason a bunch of editors feel these sites are a necessity for articles to 'survive'. It's all very frustrating to me to be honest. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I took your advice and posted here. Your comments would be appreciated. --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'll keep an eye out for future discussion on this subject. Thanks for the alert! :-) Rossrs (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rossrs. In January 2005, when you made an "extensive expansion and rewrite" of the article on Anne Frank, you said that the autograph book that Anne received for her 13th birthday, which she used as her first diary, was "bound with a red and green checkered cloth". A few months later, I changed "red and green" to "red and white" because in photos of the diary (such as the one here: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_V2hxUD8yUlk/TEhQM6AjG3I/AAAAAAAAAoY/LcxE2Q-3bcI/s1600/frank622+Correction.jpg) red and white seem to be the predominant colours. In August 2008, an anonymous editor changed it back to "red and green", and this remained until last week, when I noticed it said "red and green" again and added a comment on the talk page asking for a source for this claim. In response to my comment, another user changed "red and green" to "red and orange", claiming that Miep herself was reported as saying it was red and orange in Anne Frank Remembered: The Story of the Woman Who Helped to Hide the Frank Family (p. 235). Could you clear this matter up? What was your source for your original claim that the diary was red and green? Thanks. Marsoult (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marsoult. I can't believe that was 6 years ago. I did that while I was stuck at home sick with the flu. I'm afraid I can't remember where I originally got that from. I agree that it looks like red and white in the photo. There are often inconsistencies between accounts of Anne and sometimes I defer to Anne Frank House, or some kind of "official representative". Even though they could be wrong, I think they're in the best position to be accurate, and are probably more strongly motivated than, for example, the work of biographers etc. [1] says "Anne Frank’s original red and green checked diary has always been on display in the museum..." and "Anne was given the red and green checked diary on her thirteenth birthday on 12 June 1942". I can't find my copy of Anne's diary, but I'm almost certain that she didn't describe it. I could be mistaken. That's about all I have to offer. cheers, Rossrs (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the swift reply. As I've said on the article's discussion page, I agree that it's best to defer to the Anne Frank House, so I've changed it back to "red and green". Marsoult (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Rossrs (talk) 08:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up the award items that I missed when I was editing Helen Mirren's article this morning. I know that I had it in mind to check the table after I hit save but my mind must have wandered off somewhere. I appreciate your cleaning up my mistake. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 02:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any time. No problem. I fixed the formatting on it yesterday without noticing that the awards had gone back in. Rossrs (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simple — I didn't realise that free images were already available. Image has been deleted. Nyttend (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching the fake credits at Joe Pesci & others. This guy has used 3 IPs to add a ton of fake film credits for a lot of actors, and it's one hell of a mess. Any contributions from 75.194.32.164 (talk · contribs), 75.213.146.101 (talk · contribs) and 75.194.206.202 (talk · contribs) should just be treated as vandalism due to his unreliability.[2] Cheers :> Doc talk 08:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll keep that in mind. Rossrs (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should qualify that: he did make at least one correct edit. That's what made it even more annoying to sift through ;> Doc talk 14:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's extremely annoying. Sometimes I think everything a vandal does should be removed, simply because I don't see why anyone should waste time distinguishing the crap, and if they can't make all their edits good or at least make them in good faith, they don't deserve to contribute. And Wikipedia won't collapse because a couple of the "good" edits get tossed aside. I realize that's not a popular attitude. Cheers Rossrs (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your comments. I know about the sortkey function but when I'm just doing drive-by updates of the table styles, I tend to leave it out (same with leaving in <br /> instead of replacing it with the ubl template). One thing: I've been away from WT:ACTOR for a bit and notice you're a supporter of an alternative table style, with the film title in the first column. Are you advocating the eventual roll-out of this system in all actor articles? Bradley0110 (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the title is the key field, I also believe that a filmography is supposed to be a chronological list of an individual's work, and shunting the year to the second column demeans this. My second concern is the darker shading in the title column means our attempts to remove colour from these tables for ease-of-read is now being reversed. Bradley0110 (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I maybe didn't get the message across properly by saying "demean". I'm probably more concerned about the use of two different styles of filmography – there is the potential for conflict. Bradley0110 (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be an idea to somehow work out a way of tagging articles with "outdated" filmography types; untabulated, non-wikitable, unsortable, etc. And it would be lovely to purge that awful baby blue. Bradley0110 (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to start a subpage on my userpage for anyone to record filmography conversions they've done – to whichever of the two prominent styles we're using. After a certain amount of time the project can look at the dominant style, discuss the pros and cons of each and then hopefully come to a decision. Bradley0110 (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It just occured to me that I said I was going to make a subpage to record changes to filmographies, then proceeded to not bother! It's at User:Bradley0110/filmographies if you'd like to add to it! Bradley0110 (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rossrs, hope you remember me? I was wondering if you have any Kylie biography with you. And if so, does that have something about Fever and the album's background? Mine doesnt have much and I am helping developing Fever for GA. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Legolas,

Yes I do remember you, of course, and I'm glad to have heard from you again. I'm sorry that there has been such a delay in my replying. I have two books that go up to the Fever timeframe, so if you could just let me know what kind of information you're looking for, I'll see if there's anything suitable. The books are:

• Baker, William; Minogue, Kylie, La La La, Hodder & Stoughton, 2002. ISBN 0-340-73439-6

• Smith, Sean, Kylie Confidential, Michael O'Mara Books Limited, 2002. ISBN 1-85479-415-9

(The second one is as cheesy as the unimaginative title suggests, but there may still be something useful in it.)

Cheers, Rossrs (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying Rossrs. Well, if both of them have any info in terms of the album's background and development and inspiration, can you please send me scan of those pages? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look, and will let you know. Cheers Rossrs (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through both books – Kylie Confidential is useless trash. I may as well throw it in the rubbish bin. There's nothing suitable and the author should be thoroughly ashamed of himself for producing a "biography" of an artist and not discussing the most successful phase of her career. La La La has some suitable material, although it's almost entirely from the POV of Minogue and/or William Baker. I'll update the article myself as time permits. There's not much, especially in the background of the album, but there are a few interesting things, such as how they approached choosing the album cover artwork etc. I don't think it's what you were looking for, but I'll contribute these few points to the article as time permits. Cheers Rossrs (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an email. I realize you are busy and very popular, but I hope you get a chance to read it. Thanks, Chandler75 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandler75 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being busy and being popular don't necessary go hand-in-hand, but thank you for putting a positive spin on my lack of reply. I have been busy. I've sent you a reply. Cheers, Rossrs (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking for a FAR of the article Sharon Tate. If I am correct, you helped promote it to FA status back in 2005. Crystal Clear x3 07:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I see that you have done a lot of work on classic actor pages. I've kind of begun a mission to improve the quality of the Kate Hepburn one and was wondering if you could give me some help/tips? The layout in particular is a bit of a mess but I don't know what the best way to arrange it would be. If you could offer any advice I'd be really greatful. But obviously don't worry if you are too busy or don't have an interest in her. Let me know either way :) --Lobo512 (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rossrs, how are you? Its time that there is an upgrade of the Mariah Carey biography article, which was falling from its FA standard. Petergriffin has developed a draft in his sandbox, by utilizing books and journals. Its a bit long and there's problems of transition, but not something that cannot be worked on. I was wondering whether you can take a look and give some valuable inputs? Thanks, — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You uploaded File:Angela Lansbury in The Picture of Dorian Gray trailer.jpg. How did you determine whether or not it was published with a copyright notice; merely whether one is present (i.e. written/spelled out) in the trailer itself, or by another means? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an opinion on this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#sorting_in_filmography_tables? BollyJeff || talk 14:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for proof of plagiarism. Here is it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Doll_Family

70.36.137.226 (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. User:Rossrs has not edited Wikipedia for nearly a year, so I will investigate your complaint (tomorrow; it's pretty late). Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 06:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rossr, I love wikipedia but I've never contributed/edited or contacted anyone that has. My issue is with the Vivien Leigh article, which seems very fine. I had read that there was a diagnosis of "borderline personality" in her case, but it's entirely possible this was a posthumous suggestion. BPD has been associated with Princess Dianna, Marilyn Monroe, and T.E.Lawrence as well. I'd like to see some mention of it on the VL article, but I clearly need to do some research to find where this might have been mentioned by a credible source. Is this something you've heard about? I have done some reading on BPD, and it's important to me that people like Leigh who struggle but surmount obstacles are celebrated as having done so. Is there a reason this hasn't come up before now? Not sure if this is the right venue for such a discussion. Could I send you an email? Not sure how all this works. Assertavert (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane Meetup Next: 11 February 2013 5-8PM - Drinks and light dinner at SLQ with Sue Gardner Last: 3 August 2012 This box: view talk edit

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup on 11 February 2013 with Sue Gardner, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation.

More details can be found at Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane/7. I hope to see you there! John Vandenberg 03:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to you because your userpage (user:Rossrs) says you are located in 'Queensland' without specifying which region of Queensland you are located in. Please add a more specific sub-category in order to be informed of what is happening in your region.)

gallery of actresses
Thank you for quality articles on actresses, such as Kylie Minogue and Bette Davis, for reminding us of Anne Frank, for phrases like "putting a positive spin on my lack of reply", for a clear user page including a lovely gallery and amusements, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 511th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seven years ago, you were recipient no. 511 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Anne Frank (estimated annual readership: 1,512,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Anne Frank to Featured Article status.

I realize you haven't been active for a while, but I still wanted to leave this note in recognition of your accomplishments--your work continues to serve millions of readers every year. I hope we'll see you back someday! Cheers and all best, Khazar2 (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Olympics, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. NickSt (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user has contributed to The Great Ziegfeld good articles on Wikipedia.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I thank you for your editorial contributions to The Great Ziegfeld, which recently was promoted to WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These sentences you contributed on 8 October 2006 to Angelina Jolie#International success: 2001–2005 are grammatically incorrect (my emphasis added):

• Although highly regarded for her acting abilities, Jolie's films to date had not appealed to a wide audience
• An adaptation of the popular Tomb Raider videogame, Jolie was required to master a British accent and undergo extensive martial arts training ...

The description before the main part of a sentence applies to the subject of that sentence, not to other parts of the sentence or things from other sentences. If you want to say something about the movie, you should add it to the sentence about the movie, not the one about Angelina. Like this:

Although her films to date had not appealed to a wide audience, Jolie was highly regarded for her acting abilities, and she became an international superstar with the release of Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001), an adaptation of the popular Tomb Raider videogame. Jolie was required to learn an English accent and undergo extensive martial arts training to play the title role of Lara Croft.

—Coder Dan (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coder Dan. Rossrs has not edited since May 2011 and is unlikely to respond to your query. Regards, -- Diannaa (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MelanieN (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Bette Davis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKay (talk) 11:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verbcatcher (talk • contribs) 19:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article J. Randy Taraborrelli has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

self promotional/non-notable subject. No RS available on person outside of a handful of reviews of his books. Main body of article appears to be lifted entirely from the subject's own website

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nblund (talk • contribs) 00:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NFaudiooveruse has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rossrs,

I'm writing to ask whether you would consider having a look at the article. I'm aware that you've been involved with a few PRs before. I've given it a major rewrite and complete overhaul. I began working on the article late October when it looked like this and somehow ended up rewriting the whole thing and aiming for potentially FA. This isn't a process I've been through before, but I have been reading the reviews here in preparation, and am familiar with FAC demands. If you have the luxury of time, I would very much appreciate a fresh set of eyes and happily address any concerns you may have.

Thanks! Pseud 14 (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Directors, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. JDDJS (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	Award of Awesomeness
	Your contributions to Wikipedia are awesome! Keep up the good work! Macintosh512ke (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:StatueAnneFrank.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There is a better (higher resolution, less tightly cropped, better lit) picture of the same statue already hosted on commons (File:Anne Frank M01.JPG) and featured on the Anne Frank article.

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  ★  Bigr Tex 16:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. DGtal (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films by year has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. fgnievinski (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Margo Albert.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. Thank you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]