User talk:Chronos2010

Phil Woolas
I've reverted your recent edits, for several reasons; 1. I don't consider your sources generally to be reliable as they appear to be polemical websites. 2. There is no such thing in the UK legal system as the "Bureau of Investigative Journalism", it's just another website. 3. Excessive quoting from the Telegraph, eve though a reliable source, is a breach of copyright and the text should be paraphrased to a shorter form, but with exact quotes if necessary, and 4. Your edit contains too much speculation about people's states of mind, and the conduct of the hearing. Otherwise, fine. If you disagree, please open a discussion on the article Talk page. Rodhull andemu  18:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

1) I disagree. They are as reliable as most other sources on here. I appreciate your experience in this matter, however, and will not add anything that is soley backed up by the UK's most widely read political blog. 2) A source does not have to be part of the UK legal system to be relevant. I would have thought Channel 4 news would be well enough regarded - it is the most prestigious news bulletin in the country. 3) I thought I was under an appropriate limit of words. However, I appreciate your experience and I shall bear this in mind in future. 4) I do not speculate on anyone's state of mind. I looked at the legal documents provided. The speculation is for the judges.

ani
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sumbuddi (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Racist woolas oldham leaflet.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Racist woolas oldham leaflet.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 , 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 take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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 .

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, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 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. (Note I didn't nominate it for deletion, I am just informing you) SmartSE (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)