User talk:Billydeeuk

Image source problem with Image:Maxine.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Maxine.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, 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, 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 Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See 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 Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Happy New Year!  The Helpful One (Talk)(Contributions) 15:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Maxine.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Maxine.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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Happy New Year!  The Helpful One (Talk)(Contributions) 15:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Martial arts articles
Please do not add computer game characters that are described as using an art as 'see also' links, as the prorails are not usually relevant to the art in general and details should be included in the text if they are. --Nate1481 10:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

August 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. McDoobAU93 (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Alex Carter
It may be on the Commons and is able to be used in the article on Lee Hunter but there are a couple of problems with the image being used on the actor's page. 1. There is no fair use rationale for it to be used on the page (although there is for the character's) and 2. It can easily be replaced by a fair use image, i.e one of him in real life. I know for a fact that this can be done is I keep on bumping into him in a pub in Headingley. Therefore the character image should not be used. Hope that explains it. (Quentin X (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC))

September 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Fences &amp;  Windows  19:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Revision to Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri articles
I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.

I intend to revise those articles following the WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games and Reliable_sources/Noticeboard about whether www.eeggs.com is a reliable source. I am not sure whether this easter egg should be included, since the two Firaxian factions (Sid and Brian) are deliberately overpowered (they give Singularity Reactors at the beginning of the game). Vyeh (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of London Cab Drivers Club
A tag has been placed on London Cab Drivers Club requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Codf1977 (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Tuition fees
Just watch out when your adding things about tuition fees that it isn't already mentioned. See here for example. Adambro (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Pasting an indentical block of text into a long series of articles, as you did in this series of edits, is not generally encouraged, and may be reverted. While I am sure that your intentions were neutral, it can appear that edits such as these are designed to make a political point. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I do take your points on board, please rest assured that my intention was not to make a political point. The inclusion of the Tuition Fees vote seemed like a salient point to make for the Liberal Democrat MPs as it was a contentious issue for the party as part of the Coalition Government (which is why, for example, I did not include how Conservative or Labour MPs voted). The fact that I mentioned both those that voted in favour, against and abstaining from the vote should show that I was trying to be neutral. However, I shall refrain from making such posts in the future. --Billydeeuk (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

By that argument surely it was also a contentious vote for Conservative MPs. It looks like they also split on how they voted on this issue. I do not believe that it is reasonable to add almost identical paragraphs to dozens if not hundreds of article pages. It would set a precedent for adding reams of unnecessary voting results to every Uk MP page. If you feel that this issue is notable enough then maybe it should be given it's own page or be added to the page on this Coalition Government.--OutragedOfOake (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely with -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) pasting the same phrase to multiple articles does not work well in an encyclopedia. Politicians debate many issues are of varying interest to different people. Generally we do not display them in this way and it certainly can appear politically biased. In the interests of neutrality one would have to add the voting record for all politicians of every party on the same issue. This would be impractical. Given the lengths to which you --Billydeeuk (talk) have gone to paste this to so many pages perhaps you should try to construct a page for this bill. I would suggest removal of all of these copied posts.--Milk76 (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just came to make this exact same series of edits, having done so on the day of the vote and been challenged with many of these same comments. The talk page of relavence from then is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rodhullandemu#From_yesterday-_fees_voting_in_MPs_pages. Many of these comments were covered there, and the conclusion was that the edits, properly cited as you have done, were fine. I feel that perhaps the information could be altered slightly to be more concise, but in this case, the voting record of these particular MPs is of importance. It was the first major vote to split the coalition to such an extent, and each LibDem MP was put in a position of either having to vote against their government, or having to break their pledge (or, of course abstain). Cons who rebelled should of course have this info added to their page also. This does not set a precedent for including records of every vote: very few will ever be of such importance in the career of even back-bench MPs. Nor does it require that all the Cons/Labs also have this added to their page: their votes (excepting the rebels) are of no interest, and can be seen just by seeing the general party stance on the issue. Anyway, take a look at Rodhullandemu's talk page to avoid going back over the same ground. 109.152.87.218 (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

-Actually the advice from editor rodhullandemu was that it was likely to be viewed as unduly weighted content for an MP's page by many editors. That has been shown to be the case here and elsewhere. I would suggest constructing a page on UK University Fees and Funding if you still believe that this information should be included in this encyclopedia. I hope that this is helpful.--90.192.34.5 (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)