Image copyright problem with Image:Fares_new.gif edit

 
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Fares_new.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sherool (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Speedy deletion of Justin fairhall edit

 

A tag has been placed on Justin fairhall, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD g10.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. SQL(Query Me!) 09:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Samulol

A tag has been placed on Samulol, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ryan shell (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Speedy deletion of Samulol edit

 

A tag has been placed on Samulol, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Samulol edit

The article appears to be an attack page for one about the person in question. Two, there are absolutely no reliable sources to show how this term is notable. Three, the term is a neologism which almost NEVER have enough information to keep said article about a term. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

IMDB doesn't mean the term was used. I see you said this was on "many news outlets" can you show a link ANYWHERE proving this? This again is looking more and more like a hoax/attack article on the person in question. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply