User talk:Ian Burnet~enwiki

Thanks for uploading Image:Indian Summer (album).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Echo Echo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:5 Alive!.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Claudia Carawan Out of the Blue.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Claudia Carawan.gif. 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:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. 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. Rossrs (talk) 11:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I reverted your edit to this page (along with some vandalism) because the Vietnam and Iraq were not formal "Wars" (Congress has the power to declare War). Although the Iraq AUMF could be said to be a declared "War" under the war powers resolution, it is more precisely "the use of military force." --Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not patronize me. I understand well the relationship between the US Congress and Presidency with regards to the declaration of war. However, the official powers delegated by the Constitution do not change that war has been declared without Congressional approval- hence the creation of the War Powers Act. Your assertion is in contradiction to other entries in this section referred to as "wars" but which also were not formally declared. The "conflicts" in Iraq and Vietnam are well-established as wars, whether or not you view them as such. If you wish to change said interpretation- which I believe constitutes original research- you must make that argument on the actual pages (to have them renamed). As is, the Wikipedian community has clearly agreed that the conflicts are in fact wars. I am restoring my edit. If you wish to change it back, you must reach a consensus about the proper terminology on the pages Vietnam War and Iraq War. Ian Burnet (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've uploaded File:SKS Logo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your move of the cabinet info. That is way more detail than is appropriate for the general presidency article. I have commented on your move proposal. In general, it is nor appropriate to post a merge nomination and then do the nomination two hours later without any feedback. It should take several days of debate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have given a very long explanation for this on the page for "First 100 Days," which I posted several days ago. The "move" was actually a merge, and which took about two hours of rewriting to complete, so I do not appreciate you simply deleting it. As has been done for other presidents, the bulk of the detail for the presidency should be put on a "first term" page. I am all for creating this now, though I have not done so because it may be contravercial, as we don't know if there will be a second term. In the meantime, I felt it appropriate to put it on the page for the presidency, which is why I submitted it there. The "First 100 Days" page simply had a copy of the information that was already there, but both had undergone edits in separate directions. One way or another, one of them should be detailed and the other should be a summary, not two copies of the same information. As for only giving two hours notice- that is not true. I gave days of notice on the talk page. I should never have put up the merge request- it was basically a mistake as I wasn't sure when I was going to get around to the work of the merge.

I do not to start an edit war, but I have given a very good justification for improving these articles, which I feel you should read. Also, I will not tolerate you simply throwing away the hours I spent rewriting and merging these more-or-less identical sections. I will leave the finished product under "First 100 Days" for now, but in the future I suggest you look over an edit before simply deleting it. Ian Burnet (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article New Kent Middle School 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/New Kent Middle School 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

00:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

13:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect States by population. Since you had some involvement with the States by population redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 07:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]