"== Template:Notred == 

 Hi. In the future, it would be nice to see that you clean up templates that you delete. like this and this Just a reminder. I remember butting this template on more pages, so maybe you did some cleanup, just didn't finish it.   
 ==RFB== 
 Sorry your RFB failed!   

 ==deleted image== 
 You deleted """" and used as your reasoning (Deleted per TfD at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 4), yet at that page there is no mention of this image. Please explain.   
 :The image was added into the Vietnam Scouting article only yesterday, so I never saw what it was tagged with, or if any notation was placed on the image that deletion of the tag also meant deletion of the image. Instead of blanket-deleting all images tagged with a particular tag that itself was deleted, could they not be re-tagged with something like ""bad tag"", causing the uploader to find a better image justification? This was not my image, but I have had images deleted by overzealous editors (not saying you) without any forewarning, and it sucks to be blindsided. It may save some grief in future, if there is something akin to ""nope, find a better tag"" placed on images. Cheers,   
 ::Wasn't giving you a hard time, and I don't have the image myself, just saying. Actually it's a lot less ugly than the runin I had when mine was deleted, for there was no protocol whatsoever, mine was just blanked. You have a nice evening.   

 ==Congratulations on reaching 10,000 edits!== 

 :-)  —  

 == Deletion of Kodak-style_CAP_code_on_film_edge.jpg == 

 Why did you delete the image at ?  I uploaded this image originally, and I did obtain full permission from the original holder of the image (film-tech.com).  I even had the proper tag (I forget which) stating that the image was uploaded with permission, and it was uploaded before the date that the tag specified.  Someone else decided to put the ""unfree image status"" tag on as well, which I was going to remove since it was incorrect, but you came along and deleted the image...  Pardon me for saying so, but didn't you see the prevoius tag the image had, stating that it was uploaded with permission? 
 
 :No problem, my apologies if I came off a bit short, I was just a little miffed since the image had the {{permission}} tag on it, and that it was uploaded by myself before 5/19/05 (4/25/05 to be exact).  But I do agree, items marked for deletion can be a bit of a confusing consternation sometimes ;).    

 ==Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.== 

 {| width=""90%"" cellspacing=""0"" align=""center"" style=""background-color:transparent;"" 
 ! Weekly Delivery 
 |} 

 {| width=""90%"" cellspacing=""0"" align=""center"" style=""background-color:transparent;"" 
 |- 
 | colspan=3 | 

 |- 
 | align=""left"" | Volume 3, Issue 29 || align =""center"" | 16 July 2007 || align=""right"" | About the Signpost 
 |- 
 | colspan=3 align=center | 

 |} 
 {| align=""center"" cellspacing=""20"" width=90% style=""background-color:transparent;"" 
 | colspan=3 align=""center"" | From the editor: Filling in with a new feature 
 |- 
 | width=50% | Möller, Walsh retain seats; Brioschi elected 
 | width=50% | British agency cites Wikipedia in denying F1 trademark 
 |- 
 | width=50% | Two new bureaucrats promoted 
 | width=50% | Wikipedian bloggers launch ""article rescue"" effort 
 |- 
 | width=50% | [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-07-16/Keen review|Book review: ''The Cult of the Am