Thanks for uploading File:Gay Times 154.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. meco (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Ash: I noticed that you did your best to retain the Wikipedia article on Michel D'Amours, and that the "decision" was ultimately to delete the article. I come to the discussion very late, and without much hope of changing anything. However, I am here to state that I consider Mr. D'Amours to be HIGHLY notable and am stunned that the debate went against his inclusion. I understand that you have decided to break with your Wikipedia editor history and involvement with Wikipedia... That is a shame. To whatever extent I can, I want you to know that I stand with you. If I had known about the debate a year ago, I would have thrown my weight on your side. If there is anything you think I can do to re-ignite that debate and perhaps, in the end, change the course of history thus far, please let me know. I am at your service. Late, I know, but here. KDS4444^Talk 10:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

So you just give up? Come on - I've read a LOT of your edits and you should be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.157.193 (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The article Ashley Ryder has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fail.s WP:PORNBIO, no evidence the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Virtually no nontrivial relevant GNews or GBooks hits. EGPA awards by consensus are not notable and therefore do not contribute to notability.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chris Thompson (pornographic actor) 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/Chris Thompson (pornographic actor) 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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)