User talk:Mrobviousjosh

Fair use rationale for Image:PoxNora_Factions.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:PoxNora_Factions.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 06:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a screenshot from the official website- it's a promotional image. Sorry I didn't list an explanation- it's been a whle since I've uploaded any images. :) Mrobviousjosh (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Nader[edit]

I have replied to your query on the Ralph Nader talk page. :) Copana2002 (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Susan Boyle 2.JPG[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Susan Boyle 2.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media 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 taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images 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 our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Game guide[edit]

I was wondering why you came to me with that question until I noticed that I had left a note on that talk page a little more than two years ago. I'm not really interested in comparing the two articles because I have zero interest for either subject and you'd probably find more competent help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Games. However "why can article X be like this if article Y can't be" is a common complaint around the wiki and, to be honest, is often referred to as the "other crap exists argument". You shouldn't assume that the current form of an article is within the rough ideal described by various policies and guidelines. Many (and I really mean many) articles currently on Wikipedia have serious problems and a fair number are in a completely unacceptable form. We shouldn't lower the standards for other articles on that basis: the correct response to identify and correct these problems. Of course, that's easier said than done. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]