User talk:David.snipes

 Drop some knowledge [ on me- Lord knows I need it ]!

Re:Question
Sure I'll adopt you, and you say that you need some help, well here is some help that was given to me when I was new here. These cover player articles.

Try to do these things when updating player article (NFL only!)
 * For player re-signed to future contacts, change the infobox status field from Practice Squad to Active.
 * Link the years in the infobox with Template:NFL Year by typing: 2008 or whatever year is correct
 * Change the hyphens in the infobox (as in 2008—present) from - to –. You can find the – right below the edit box on the edit page (just to the right of the drop-down box that says Insert). It's the first dash from the left. Let me know if that doesn't make sense, haha.
 * Add NFL debut to the infobox if applicable
 * If stats are already in infobox, update through Week 17 of the 2008 season. If stats aren't in infobox, it's up to you if you want to add them.
 * De-link the birth dates in the intros.
 * Use the Template:City-state for the birth place in the intro. (Ex: )
 * Standardize intros. This is how I do it (things in caps should be replaced):


 * PLAYER NAME (born BIRTH DATE in BIRTH PLACE) is an American football POSITION for the CURRENT TEAM of the CURRENT LEAGUE. He was drafted by the DRAFT TEAM in the # round of the YEAR NFL Draft. He played college football at COLLEGE.''


 * Some variations:
 * If player was undrafted, say "He was signed by the ORIGINAL TEAM as an undrafted free agent in SIGNED YEAR."
 * Below that, add any teams not listed in the previous paragraph: (Ex. Smith has also played for the Cincinnati Bengals and Washington Redskins)
 * If player has not played for all teams he's been a member of (if he has some practice squad or offseason tenures) just say "Smith has also been a member of..." instead of "has also played for..."
 * Also, be sure to remove "who is a practice squad player" from the intro if it's there. For free agents, I do "is an American football POSITION who is currently a free agent. For practice squad players, I lose the word "currently" and say "is an American football POSITION who is a practice squad player for the CURRENT TEAM of the CURRENT LEAGUE."


 * Add any team site bios to the External links section with TEAM NAME bio as the link name.
 * Replace DEFAULTSORT in the categories with the Lifetime template: (Ex. for Peyton Manning you would type  Be sure to add two || between the birth year and the last name to ensure the death year field is blank!


 * When players only have one season with a team (such as Oliver Ross with the Patriots) please only put (2008) rather than (2008-2008).

Just a few for updating roster templates such as Template:New York Giants roster:
 * Always put players in alphabetical order within their position group. When you added A.J. Davis, you put him at the bottom of the list, but instead he should be sorted alphabetically.
 * Always check the article links for players you are adding (or, search the history of the template and see if you can just copy and paste the link from whenever the player was last on the roster, which will also have the correct number and such). In the case of A.J. Davis, Wikipedia likes to use a space between initialed first names, so it should actually be A. J., not A.J. - also, the correct page is A. J. Davis (American football).
 * Always update the roster count at the bottom of the template. If a player was added to the 53-man roster, then you +1 to that (i.e. change it from 52 to 53). If a player was placed on IR, then you would -1 from the 53 and +1 to inactive. If a player is added to the 53-man roster from the practice squad, then you -1 from the PS and +1 to the 53.
 * Always use edit summaries (you might want to see Help:Edit summary)
 * Always check the template history if the player was on the team's roster before for a number. Then double check that number against the current roster (to see if it's taken now), and the team's online roster.

Hope this helps, and don't worry I know it's a lot don't put pressure on yourself to get it right everytime. Trust me I don't get it right everytime. If you have any questions on this, contact me on my talk page. Thanks for being willing to help!-- Giants27 : Chat  19:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, good job just take a look at what I did.-- Giants27 T/  C  20:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's simple the template is located at Template:Infobox NFLactive, however do not copy it from there because then you'll get a bunch of garbage you don't need. The best way to do it is copy the template from let's say David Loverne and fill in the information you need. However as you know some players are drafted and some are undrafted to get what you need for that do one of the following:

Drafted: |draftyear=2009 |draftround=1 |draftpicc=1 Undrafted: |undraftedyear=2009 Hope this helps, anymore questions don't hesistate to ask me.-- Giants27 T/  C  21:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey no problem, you're a quick learner, I'll fix your newly created page when I get a chance and good luck on this one! Quick reminder: Good luck!-- Giants27 T/  C  21:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Add the template so you can add the info you need
 * Add categories (see Help:Category)
 * If you have references remember to add them like this:
 * If there is no references section as of now (obviously there won't be since you are creating the page), add ==References== and then right below it
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David.snipes/Sandbox - Hows that? --David.snipes (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Very well done, check out the changes I made and although they seem like a lot, every new use has to learn the ropes before they get everything right, so don't get discouraged, trust me you will get it, it just takes time, trust me because I was you when I first joined..-- Giants27 T/  C  21:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ok, do you have to add in those links by hand or is there an easier way? What I plan on doing is filling in the red blanks in the draft history. I am working on the 1999 draft.


 * What you can do if you don't want to type too much you can copy-paste one article that is created to one that is not yet created, only negative is if you forget to change something. Good luck on creating all those redlinks!-- Giants27 T/  C  22:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, for the late response, but to answer your question, to me guys who were drafted were notable because of that, however there are going to be players who never play in a game and unless they are notable for their college careers, then they shouldn't have pages.-- Giants27 T/  C  19:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've never watched or edited a UFC or MMA article before but from what I saw from your article it looks pretty good. Only problem is the references, and this time I won't change them myself, so you can learn. Remember to enter references type in:

Great job, and keep up the good work.-- Giants27 T/  C  00:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ok, can you tell me what I screwed up on source number 8 with? Told you I was gonna be trouble David.snipes (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll check it out when I get a chance. And don't worry you are no problem at all.-- Giants27 T/  C  01:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah basically:


 * A) They played in a NFL game
 * B) If they did not play in a game, they were notable in college
 * -- Giants27 T/  C  01:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey David, thanks for your question, feel free to add the stats to pages but not the career review since basically the whole article is that. And there is no be-all, end-all except WT:NFL, which is the project talkpage it is also where you can bring up ideas and such for NFL related articles. PS, suggest you read WP:ADMIN, to find out what they do so you can know in the future. Cheers!-- Giants27 T/  C  20:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's a great idea, I've been meaning to do something like that, go ahead and add it, if you want me to check it out before you post don't hesistate to ask me.-- Giants27 T/  C  18:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, sorry never noticed your message, to answer your question yes, that would probably help the reader understand more how those picks came to the Panthers.-- Giants27 T/  C  01:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You to remove the logo from the userbox because it is a non-free image.-- Giants27 T/  C  23:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
-- Giants27 T/  C  19:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright
Just wanted to make sure you know that you can't use text verbatim from the sources on Wikipedia, such as you do on User:David.snipes/Sandbox 3. -- aktsu (t / c) 17:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * THats why its on the sandbox - I'll have it rewritten or blockquoted if/when its posted. --David.snipes (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome, just wanted to make sure :) -- aktsu (t / c) 17:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey please Keep me in line- I'll screw up soon enough! How does the page look other than that? The Book Ref I can;t get to look correct.--David.snipes (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me, but you have to put in between -tags . Also, if you don't have it activated already, the refTools-gadget is extremly helpful for citing stuff. It's under Gadgets in My preferences. -- aktsu (t / c) 17:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:NFL Project
Hey there, just got your message. I'm not sure how much help I can give you, it's been almost a year since I created that project but I can certainly try. The stats box is created by a robot so that will be taken care of in time. But as for the page itself, it's just a lot of templates. Like each individual box is a separate page itself. I'd recommend just to play around with it, that's pretty much how I created the Colts Project. Try some things out, if it doesn't look good or doesn't work right away it can always be changed later. Sorry I wasn't much help, Wikipedia has been on the back burner for me recently. But if you have any specific questions about creating the project, feel free to ask! Have a good evening! HoosierStateTalk 05:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: USA-MMA
Ah sorry, I've been a little busy so I didn't get a chance to look at it. Looks good though, can't say I see any major problems with it. The only thing I would question is if it's really notable enough for an article. 4 of the 6 champions are amateur fighters, and I can't say that I think an organization primarily putting on amateur fights seems very notable. There should also be more sources (which if they are independent of it would also help with showing notability). -- aktsu (t / c) 10:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and how come this page lists only three shows while the article have six? -- aktsu (t / c) 10:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * His webmaster Stinks-only reason and I got the events from the owner- plus they are on his myspace but another editor took that link off the external link page.

I have it as notable as it is brand new and actually outdraws other MMA orgianzations that DO have thier own wiki pages- they have the highest drawing MMA cards in LA in both 07 and 08. The Card in Lafayette actually had more fans than UFC 1. Thanks for taking a look David.snipes (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
-- aktsu (t / c) 19:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

--TreyGeek (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Good Job
I just wanted to tell you that you are doing a good job. When I created my account on Wikipedia I lurked around a while, reverting vandalism here and there, watching how things were supposed to happen. You are taking a more active role, asking questions, and making some worthy contributions all the while (dealing with redlinks on those 'old' articles is no fun task). You mentioned somewhere that you were afraid of making edits without me yelling at you. Don't worry about it, I probably get a little too rough with my 'suggestions' for improvment. (And if I do seem to be too rough, feel free to slap me around on my talk page in return.) Again, good job and keep it up! --TreyGeek (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Coming from you it means a lot. I'm slowly finding out that different "areas" have different guidelines and it takes a ton of time to get used to it- I.E. Football- getting in 1 play in the NFL gets a page- but in MMA you can have 5 fights in the UFC and you might not get a page. Part of the hardest problem I have here is there is no be-all end all- It would be nice if there was a way to get a question answered without having to go through 15 people, such as with the notable pages.

Thank you again. David.snipes (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely agree on the issue of notability with MMA fighters. It's definitely not a clear issue.  Atksu started a discussion at the MMA WikiProject on how we, as a project, can help determine notability.  Don't be afraid to comment in it.  --TreyGeek (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, I asked him to, we had been going back and forth on it. David.snipes (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: WikiProject Mixed martial arts/notable
I think you're making the removal of redlinks a way bigger deal than it really is, but am I correct in thinking it all comes down to you wanting articles for everyone notable and removed redlinks for the rest? I would personally strongly advise against making that a goal since I can't see how anything particularly good can come from it; what's the use of hundreds upon hundreds of stubs with nothing but a fight record that constantly has to be updated? Sherdog provies more or less the exact same info and does a far better job at keeping it updated. Removed redlinks is OK I guess; looks better etc, but it's such a minor issue. More stubs = more work and if the actual content doesn't outweight the effort in updating and keeping it clean of vandalism I really can't support it.

Can I instead suggest vandal-fighting as an area where your efforts would IMO be better placed? This is a watchlist of every MMA article here and should provide plenty of work, and if not you always have Special:RecentChanges :) (Tip: it gets far easier to keep track of things if you activate "Enhanced recent changes (requires JavaScript)" under "Recent changes" in "My preferences", and if you haven't already you should activate all the browsing- and editing gadgets under "Gadgets", especially Twinkle.)

I really can't emphasize strong enough how much I would hate for there to be more stubs on fighters, but I will say that I'm glad you're at least going about it the proper way in making sure the stubs would actually be about more-or-less notable people. If you'd like to create articles I would ask you put in the effort to at least get it to Start-class, perferably C, as one of those is worth 100 stubs IMO. -- aktsu (t / c) 01:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I do see your point, but fighters such as mark Hall are JUST as valid as some fighters right now, and as Wiki is an encyclopedia- their contrubutions should not be ignored- and they should have had pages 5 years ago. The redlinks are annoying to me as they show incompleteness- if the link is removed then you can assume that the person is simply not that improtant- a redlink and you don;t know if that victory is a good win or not- quite often I have won a sports argument by pointing out that a certain fighter lost to a person not even important enough to have a wiki page! I will do my best to improve all stubs to start class- not just throwup the win/loss records as that really does not help.

I wonder if we should link ALL fighter that do not have a wikipage to Sherdog? Problem there is that other websites (mmauniverse etc) have JUST as good a database and I do not think Wiki should favor one website over another. David.snipes (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, as long as you don't create articles for any random fighter I can't complain too much. Linking to Sherdog is probably a bad idea for the reason you stated. -- aktsu (t / c) 22:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
-- aktsu (t / c) 22:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

WT:MMA
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts, input appreciated. -- aktsu (t / c) 13:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Now also at Talk:Kim Dong-hyun. Cheers, -- aktsu (t / c) 19:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "I do NOT think that the W/L should EVER be included- but mentioning that a fighter went 13-1-1 before turning pro would be relevant information.", could you clarify? Should "ever" be "never", or are you saying you don't think it always has to be included? Also, since there might be confusion about if this is about listing it at all or just in table-format, do you think you could give your opinion on both (table and prose)? I'll edit the RFC clarify the distinction. -- aktsu (t / c) 20:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I went back and added a Bottom Line. Problem with listing a TON of amatuer fights- is more and more often a lot of fighters have gone that route - on my website I cover a few local shows and some of them have a half dozen Ama fights before turning Pro. and if we legitimize them tablewise, then the organization becomes legit. David.snipes (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's still nothing to Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s 90 amateur fights :) As long as the number of fights is reasonable I think we should have a table. Also, btw, if you have WP:Twinkle (and you should, it's awesome) there's a "TB"-tab at the top of the page for talkbacks :) -- aktsu (t / c) 21:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, you're of course entitled to your opinion if that is it, but just to make sure we're on the same page: you don't think that if something is known (i.e. verifiable) about a fighter's amateur record it should always be included in some form or another? I think personally such info is extremely relevant, even if it is just mentioning the record. (Also, note I added "information about" to the "question" just now). -- aktsu (t / c) 21:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Not really, I cover the Ring Rulers and 85% of them will never have a pro-fight, I also do the cage kings and half of them will never get beyond that promotion, so if we are going to start covering Ama fights for the pros- then we are going to eventually start putting in ama promotions, and then we have a problem with Original reserch, as my site might be the only place to actually house all the records- it is not even on the company's site anymore.

Honestly, How many of Mayweathers 90 fights are notable or important to anyone not wearing a T-Shirt or related to him? Other than a line that says Fighter X went 190-2 in golden gloves and deafeated such people as A,B and C (all notable in thier OWN right) what difference does it make to LIST all those posers

How long would JEREMY HORN's career been- its been said he has over 300 fights if you included them all- and what about KIMBO?David.snipes (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and that would be the argument against a table of/listing all amateur fights (the opponents are probably nobodies), but question 1 is basically asking if we should ban everything related to amateur MMA from articles, no mention of it what so ever; no record, nothing - even if verifiable. And doing that is what is in my opinion ridiculous and why I'm here to make sure we're on the same page. I see your point regarding listing them, but also note that in this case we're talking about someone who is 12-0 as a pro losing a fight only months before making his pro-debut. That's hardly an irrelevant fight which all mention of should be removed from the article don't you agree? I strongly feel that the "correct" answer to (1) is "any information about an amateur record is definitely not automatically irrelevant trivia and should definitely not be removed from all articles about current pro-fighter no matter what is is, be it a single statement of record or a list of fights". -- aktsu  (t / c) 22:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then no, I would think it was up to the article writer/editor if the amatuer inforamtion was relevant to the fighter/career. I do not think there is a hard and fast- no amatuer info should ever be included. So in that case I would say we are on the same page, thats why I put depends.David.snipes (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're attacking it from the wrong angle though; the question isn't "should it always be included no matter what it is", it is "should it never be included no matter what it is". I completely agree it should be up to editors what exactly to include and how to include it (that's what (2) is about - determining what's appropriate), but what I'm arguing is there shouldn't be a flat-out ban on it, which I think you agree with, but by saying "depends" it seems you're partly agreeing there should be a ban. Are your sure you don't mean that there should definitely not be a ban, but that it's what to include and whether to include in each specific case that "depends"? It's just that arguing that something, no matter how remotely relevant it is, should always - not matter what - never be included, makes no sense to me. There's always exception to warrant a ban being a bad idea, but especially in this case (mentioning a fighters previous fights) I don't think even considering a ban makes sense. Anyway, I've made my point so I'll stop bothering you :) -- aktsu (t / c) 23:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: thought
It's going pretty good, thanks for asking :) By now, it's pretty clear that most UFC-event-pages will need protection at some point -- at the very least right after the event but in most cases even earlier (especially for events with either Lesnar, A. Silva or Liddell, as those seems to draw the most vandals I've noticed). Protection is sort of a no-no as the idea is we should strive to always be the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" unless things are getting out of hand (note the bar is lower for BLPs though), so pre-emptive protection -- as nice as it would be -- probably isn't going to happen even though we know it's going to be needed.

Regarding your email, we probably wouldn't be able to the site as I don't think it would pass WP:RS... Info about contracts (and remaining fights etc.) would indeed be pretty good info to add to articles though (for instance, how awesome would a "remaning fights on contract"-field in the infobox be?) but I don't think we'd be able to keep stuff like that up to date while reliably sourced. A "current roster"-article probably wouldn't work for the same reason, and it would most likely be labelled as WP:Listcruft anyway... -- aktsu (t / c) 09:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I do have a serious issue with the thought of it not being reliable- I do dilligent work on making sure that is current and up to date- using primarily the UFC's own list and the fighters personal pages as well as a MINIMUM Of 3 independant sites- unless I can verify through sherdog/UFC/Fighters page.

That is the reason the "fights left on contract" column has so many holes- I'm not putting something up there unless I can verify it by those guidelines. But it was an idea. David.snipes (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Matt Hughes
I guess you originally posted this on your talkpage before TreyGeek reverted, but he had already done so when you posted on mine :) Any reason you couldn't do it yourself btw? -- aktsu (t / c) 17:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First off I should mention you should never be afraid of reverting/removing anything without a source -- especially controversial material -- from a living person's biography per the relevant policy. As for the matter at hand; the IP only added a seemingly BS fight, so there's no problem removing that, but I guess what you were unsure about was the "Legacy"-section? I didn't actually notice it before now and I definitely agree it should be removed (and I have done so now) per our neutral point-of-view policy and WP:V/WP:BLP: while something can probably be written about his legacy as a fighter that section was nothing short of ridiculous with all its unsubstantiated claims. I can see why you're hesitant about flat-out removing it though but you really shouldn't be since, to quote WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (emph. not mine). The section had no sources whatsoever, so even if it was pretty neutral -- which is wasn't -- removal is completely justified IMO. -- aktsu (t / c) 18:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, no-one should be biting any newbies because that is against WP:BITE :) The acronyms and shorthand-links makes it sound complicated but most of it comes down to common sense. To write "The legacy of Matt Hughes will be forever etched in UFC folklore" is obviously not OK for what should be an objective and neutral encyclopedia and I would say is OK to remove no matter if you refer WP:NPOV while doing so or not. It's definitely a learning process though and I can't blame anyone for not wanting to risk "getting in trouble" for removing something someone obviously spent time writing. Just remember that you can't really do any serious damage when editing; if you make a mistake or someone disagrees with you it's a few clicks and it's undone. Don't be afraid to make edits and just let me know if you need any help :) -- aktsu (t / c) 20:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: FK
Seems like good advice to me. I see your point on information you get from interviewing someone not being eligible to be put on WP (I previously ran into just that problem when a person which there wasn't much info about had done a interview for a British MMA website which had a *.tripod.com site (the website was quite a few years old), so although I didn't doubt the authenticity and correctness of the info, it simply couldn't be used), though it makes a whole lot more sense remembering the fake interview with Brock Lesnar that was posted on a (I think, although it was for sure reported on by) semi-reliable (as in almost passing WP:RS) website. They later claimed someone had hacked them at added it without them knowing, but I personally have a hard time believing that -- and even if it was true, that's not something that will happen to Sherdog or Yahoo.

As for sources, I know WP:VG has such a list so maybe we could make one too. I remember it was somewhat shot down the last time it was brought up though, so I dunno. I don't think I personally would have any problems with it. -- aktsu (t / c) 14:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Final Conflict
Sorry, wasn't sure if you noticed the IP removed content as well :) Yeah, in most cases it's much easier to simply revert (in one way or another; undo, rollback or using popups) than removing and reinserting. In this case all you needed was an "undo". -- aktsu (t / c) 20:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:CageRulers.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:CageRulers.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 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 uploaded by following this link. 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. ww2censor (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:RingRulersLogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:RingRulersLogo.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 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 uploaded by following this link. 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. ww2censor (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Cage-Rulers-Logo-bluebackground.gif
A tag has been placed on File:Cage-Rulers-Logo-bluebackground.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

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), 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. ww2censor (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:CageRulers.gif
Thanks for uploading File:CageRulers.gif. 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 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 uploaded by following this link. 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. ww2censor (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
ww2censor (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Petition to have flagicons returned to fighter pages
I have started a petition in the hopes of having flagicons returned to MMA fighters pages. Sign here if you would like to help. Thank you. -- WölffReik (talk)

WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter
Delivered 00:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC) by EdwardsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the spamlist.

Wikiproject Articles for creation Needs You!
 WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive! The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive. There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out! Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 13:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject AFC needs your help... again
 WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive! The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive. There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Delivered at 12:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC) by EdwardsBot (talk), on behalf of WikiProject AFC

October 2013 AFC Backlog elimination drive
 WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!

The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. -- Mdann 52   talk to me! This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:David.snipes/sandbox 8
User:David.snipes/sandbox 8, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:David.snipes/sandbox 8 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:David.snipes/sandbox 8 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:David.snipes/Cage Rulers
User:David.snipes/Cage Rulers, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:David.snipes/Cage Rulers and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:David.snipes/Cage Rulers during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * 1) Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
 * 2) Editor-focused central editing dashboard
 * 3) "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
 * 4) Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
 * 5) Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded User wikipedia/RC Patrol (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!