User talk:Cimm

Fair use rationale for Image:20030513afp.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:20030513afp.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 21:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The image meets all criteria under Wikipedia's rules for fair use. I have provided an expanded rationale on the image description page. If additional information is required, please state specific issues or questions. Cimm[talk] 23:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Aga Khan
Well, I suggest you get some more feedback, before you go to WP:FAC. I don't know what this could be exactly. These are some alternatives: You could also combine more of these alternatives. My advice is to show that your article is well-researched, and well-structured. These links may also help you: I hope all this was helpful!--Yannismarou 18:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You could go through WP:GAC, before you go to WP:FAC.
 * You could ask for an external copy-editing to polish the prose. The WikiProject League of Copyeditors accepts such requests. Or you could go straight to to a particular copy-editor and ask him to polish your article. I'll come back to this last point.
 * You could ask another experienced Wikipedian to review or/and copy-edit the article. User:SandyGeorgia, e.g., is an excellent reviewer (you can tell him I recommended you to him), but he often avoids to copy-edit. User:Gzkn, User:Robth, User:Yomangani are all very good reviewers and copy-editors, and they all know me; so you could also tell them that I recommended them to you. Check their userpages, and see if you feel that any of them is qualified for this particular topic and article (Robth, for instance, is mainly a classicist, but this is not necessarily a problem). Or you could contact another Wikipedian you respect, and thinks that can offer you a good feedback.
 * You could go for a general peer-review.
 * User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a
 * User:Cla68: The section Unsolicited advice on preparing a history article for FA
 * Useful FA advice from the Military History Project
 * User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA.


 * I also gave you a review. Hope you find at least some of it helpful. :-) Jeffpw 10:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sadruddin
It is the man, not his social affiliations, that are important. I'd rather more emphasis be put on his work, his career, rather than who he was friends with, etc. The family section is fine as is; we don't need to know anything more about them. To emphasize them or his friends more only undercuts his career strides and importance.Mowens35 22:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the death section is fine; it doesn't belong anywhere else, in any section. Stubby, perhaps, but still accurate.Mowens35 22:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

French
This is what I was talking about when I said some here are trying to remove French terms. I don't agree, but thought you might want to know, given the French terms in your article. Cheers, Jeffpw 02:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Aga Khan
Glad to help. :) Looks good, good job! ← A NAS ''' Talk? 15:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm also glad to help, the article looks good, probably close to FA (though I'm not very experienced with the FA/PR process). Good luck with it.--Carabinieri 16:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, very good. I've only suggested minor proses fixes really. It should stand a good chance at FA. Trebor 18:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just left a vote of support for this excellent article. Looks like you're going to breeze through FA! Hats off to you! Jeffpw 23:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Happy the article went through and happy the WP:BIOGRAPHY review helped.--Yannismarou 13:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Aga Khan II
Hi Cimm! I noticed that you were involved with the Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan article, which has FA status. I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm currently working on an Aga Khan II article. Seeing as Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan is part of Aga Khan II's family and that you have a lot more experience than I do, I was wondering if you could help me out? Let me know! :D Erdling 06:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Cimm! Thanks for all the suggestions you made to the Aga Khan II article. They were very helpful! If you have some time, I'd appreciate some feedback on the article with the changes I've made to it! Thanks! - Erdling 09:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you again, Cimm. Congratulations on your FA, by the way. I'm quite busy with work with my Project, and I have my final exams soon, but I will try to give it a look. :-) Regards,  An as  talk? 19:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)