User talk:Fifaworld07

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Red Dwarf peer review

The Red Dwarf article has just been requested for a Peer Review. As an interested editor of the subject I was wondering if you would like to join in on the discussions. As you may be aware, the article has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if you could head over and give some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. If you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Red Dwarf --Nreive (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Climate change denial AfD

Hi Fifaworld07, please check your AfD nomination. In particular, you cannot reactivate the old AfD. See the comment added by the AfD template (<!-- The nomination page for this article already existed when this tag was added. If this was because the article had been nominated for deletion before, and you wish to renominate it, please replace "page=Climate change denial" with "page=Climate change denial (2nd nomination)" below before proceeding with the nomination.). I also happen to think that your proposals cited reason is against policy and the proposal likely to be WP:SNOWed, but that's no reason to botch the technicalities. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

- Your Afc request for List of longest running U.K. television series -

This was already denied as being unsuitable for Wikipedia. Please do not add the request again. ArcAngel (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

  • Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at The Simpsons‎. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- Scorpion0422 13:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC) i want that image onb that page someone else keeps deleting it

[edit] Your recent RfA

I am sorry, but I have closed your Request for adminship prematurely. Simply put, you only have 299 edits on Wikipedia; while your edit count isn't the only determining factor, and numerous people have their own personal standards by which they judge RfA candidates, this particular RfA was all but assured of not passing.

I am sorry about this, and I hope you don't take it personally. If you continue to contribute to the project in a positive fashion, I am confident that you would be able to submit a successful RfA in the future. You may wish to consider applying for an evaluation by other Wikipedia editors for feedback on how to obtain the necessary experience. Once you are ready to request adminship again, there is a great admin coaching program available, as well as a guide to requests for adminship.

If you have any other questions about becoming an administrator, please don't hesitate to ask me. Good luck! ~ Riana ⁂ 13:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, an admittedly minor point: would you consider removing the articial "new messages" message from your user page? Some editors find this irritating when looking over the contributions of a prospective admin. Just a friendly comment. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA advice

Hello, and thanks for submitting your RFA. You may may find the following advice helpful. If you have not done so already, please read the following.

  • Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship
  • WP:Admin
  • the admin reading list.
  • Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Also, nominees returning after an unsuccessful RfA should wait at least another 3,000 edits and 3 months before trying again. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
  • The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
  • Adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
  • Article building is viewed by many as essential to adminship. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to fulfill this. Alternatively, one should have added a total of 30,000 bytes of content, not necessarily all in one article. I find a large number of "Wikignome" type edits to be acceptable.
  • I recommend taking part in RfA discussions to help learn from the experiences of others. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA. Good luck and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 13:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Simpsons-cast.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Simpsons-cast.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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. 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 specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. nancy (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] International Rivers Network

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of International Rivers Network, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.appropedia.org/International_Rivers_Network. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kettering Town.GIF}

Thank you for uploading Image:Kettering Town.GIF. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 09:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of fair use images on your userpage

You may not have fair use images on your userpage. Image:Kettering Town.GIF is such an image. I have removed it, yet again, from your userpage. Please see the policy at WP:NFCC #9 and do not put this image back onto your userpage as this constitutes a direct violation of policy. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

at least replace it with a similar image or suggest some images i can use insted of ruining my userpage by putting that ghastly message there

  • I can't decide for you what should be there. That's up to you. However, putting fair use images back against our policy as linked to above is vandalism. If you persist in doing this, as you did yet again here, you will be blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

i see your point but IT IS MY IMAGE why cant i use my own images!!! FW07 (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Because it isn't your image. It belongs to Kettering Town Football Club, and they hold all rights to it. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)