User talk:Wayland

• 2003 archive
• 2004 archive
• 2005 archive
• 2006 archive
• 2007 archive
• 2008 archive

Message regarding your use of the No Multi License Template

In case you are not aware, the Wikimedia Foundation has proposed that the copyright licensing terms on the wikis operated by the WMF – including Wikipedia – be changed to include the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) license in addition to the current GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) as allowed by version 1.3 of the GFDL. The community has approved this change with 75.8% in favor, and on June 15, 2009, the change will take effect.
You currently have {{NoMultiLicense}} on your user or user talk page, which states that your edits are licensed under the GFDL only. On or before June 15, this template will be changed to reflect Wikipedia's new licensing terms. If you accept the licensing change, you do not need to do anything (and feel free to remove this message); if you do not accept it, we regret that you will no longer be able to contribute to the encyclopedia. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#NoMultiLicense template if you have any comments.

Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 20:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC) for the Village pump. Report errors here.

Articles for deletion nomination of 23 Enigma

I have nominated 23 Enigma, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/23 Enigma. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Simonm223 (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(The '23 Enigma' message above was sent to me in error. I wasn't the author of that article). --wayland (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Freak scene

The article Freak scene has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced speculative Original Research.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SilkTork *^YES! 11:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:IT 1971-09-09 B-IT-Volume-1 Iss-112 020-clip.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:IT 1971-09-09 B-IT-Volume-1 Iss-112 020-clip.jpg. 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 file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:IT 1971-09-09 B-IT-Volume-1 Iss-112 020-clip.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:IT 1971-09-09 B-IT-Volume-1 Iss-112 020-clip.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Email forwarded to permissions-enwikimedia.org as requested.

--wayland (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Towns in Nevada

Category:Towns in Nevada, which you created, has been nominated for 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. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home 02:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no proof that they exist by law. All incorporated cites in Nevada are Cities. the CDP's have town boards, but they are not incorporated as a town, which there is not just thing in Nevada. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

They do not exist on state law. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

Saying that thee are towns exist in Nevada violates WP:OR. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home 12:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

They problem is what is a definition of a town? By state law there is no clear definition of a town. Maybe the category should retiled Category:Places in Nevada with town boards? Most CDP's in Nevada and some unincorporated places have town boards or homeowners association. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

Fair, but it should go under [1]. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home