User talk:Renamed user 1253/Archive1

Sir John Deane's Students
Hello, As a former student of the college, I was torn as to whether the section should stay or not, as although have originated as vandalism, it is generally true. Perhaps the end sentence 'who tend to wear Burberry caps and track-suits', is unnecessary, and could be deleted, but I didn't delete it when I sorted the article out because it is, sadly, fact.

But the NPOV flag I put in was for the first section, with sentences such as 'excellent teaching and a high level of personal support for each student'.

Thanks, Drak2

sea-dwelling
It means they live on boats, of course. Kelisi 16:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No, not exclusively. They stick to land during the rainy season, apparently. Kelisi 16:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Headbutt image
I reverted your edit that re-added the image as it is fair use and in my opinion does not permit its inclusion in the article.--Clawed 10:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request
This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I may have found your page based on your contributions or your link repair user box on your user page. If you are not a member, please consider including your name on the project page. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 23:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

South Park rogue
Thanks for the punch-up. Sleepytime morning edits make for poor spelling. More coffee is the answer. Cheers. L0b0t 14:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

April 2007
Please do not violate Wikipedia policy by introducing inappropriate pages, such as Blackhorse to Wikipedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť (Talk)   (Contributions)  14:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one who deleted the page. I'm am not an admin therefore I can not delete pages. An admin must of agreed with me and thought the page was promoting a company. If you think I am wrong, recreate the page. And by the way, I don't have a problem. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť  (Talk)   (Contributions)  15:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not from the U.K. and I have never heard of the business. Also, the article didn't look like it was in the Wikiformat. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť  (Talk)   (Contributions)  15:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How is an article about a company helping the encyclopedia? Why is this company worthy of an entry? Has it done something large to help people? From what I can tell, the article was about a company that has had no significances. Thanks, Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť  (Talk)   (Contributions)  16:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on QXL, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DES (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (You wrote) Are you able to undelete QXL? I don't remember what my contribution to the page was exactly, but the company was once the largest auction website in europe and has multiple media references. I'm sure if there are advertisement like issues with the article they can be cleaned up. Timb0h 17:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am able to, but somewhat reluctant. I'll tell you what I'll do though. I'll undelete and moce to a page in your userspace, User:Timb0h/QXL. There you can work on it and get it properly neutral and properly sourced with reliable sources. When you do, check it with me or another admin or an uninvolved experienced editor before moving it back to article space. Don't take forever on the matter, please -- draft articles should not stay in user space more than a moth or so, normally. I'll keep a watch on the page. I hope that will satisfy you. DES (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Now undelted and moved to userspace, as described above. DES (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you recreated QXL. I also see you did it as a cut&paste, rather than a move of the version in your userspace. Unless there is nothing in the new version that comes from the old version, this violates the GFDL. That is why i put the old version in you userspace, so that when it was ready it could be MOVED back to the article space, thus preserving the history. Unless I hear from you to the contrary promptly, i am going to move the user version back to article space, and merge the histories. Also, I di ask you to chek with an experienced editor before reinserting. I undeleted on that understanding, but i see no indication of such a check on your talk page. Therefore I am goign to do a through check of the re-written article. If it is dubious, i'll take what ever action seems warrented. DES (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:QxlLogo.png
I see you uploded this logo image. You did not give the source for the image, however. Please do so, as all images must have a source specified. images without sources get deleted fairly quickly. DES (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:QxlLogo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:QxlLogo.png. 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-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, 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 02:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. DES (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

QXL again
(you wrote) It does appear that the version you put in my user space is copy pasted from the company website. Some of the stuff I remember putting into the article, which I believe was sourced with links, appears to be gone. It would be good if you could restore the original article with it's history, and then replace the current version with the non-advertisement stripped out version I just created User:Timb0h/QXL. Then I can use the history of the article to restore any relevent details that were taken out, like the legal troubles with allegro Timb0h 12:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The version I copied to your userspace wqs the version delted, and it included all the revisions and history on file. DES (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(You wrote) There is no rule that says that I cannot recreate an article that was deleted on the basis that it was an advertisement. Given that the new article does not break any of the rules of wikipedia, I am free to follow your advice, or not, at my own discretion. Unless of course, someone appointed you king of wikipedia in my absence. The whole point of wikipedia is that anyone can edit, people do not have to 'check with experienced editors' before making contributions. Timb0h 09:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct, you are under no obligation to check with me or anyone, and there is indeed no rule against creating a new articel in palce of one delted. indeed where the new article is a significant improvement, this is encouraged. It is true that I regarded the check as a condition of my undeleting and copying to your user space the deleted version, which i did at your request. But you never actually agreed to that, I merely requested it in return for making the copy. In future I will probably handle such requests a bit differently, but that is a matter for the future.
 * Having reviewed the revised version of QXL it does not appear to warrent deletion. It is sourced, and does not seem to be unduly advertisement-like. A litle more on what the company does now and what its cuurent reputation is would be good, if that could be sourced, but it is fine as it stands. Do please provide a source for the logo image.
 * I apologize for the tone of my previous note. I was annoyed, but not wholely justifiably. I think it would have been a good idea for you to check the re-writtren article, but as you say, there was no rule requiring this. Failing to move back and preserve the history was unfortunate, but that is now dealt with. I hopew you find wikipedia, if not myself, pleasent in future. DES (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:QxlLogo.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:QxlLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Learndirect
A template has been added to the article Learndirect, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author.  → Lwalt ♦ talk 08:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Daimondlogo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Daimondlogo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BarnstapleBypass2007.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BarnstapleBypass2007.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Admirallogo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Admirallogo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Belllogo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Belllogo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Gilad Shalit
Hi Tim,

There seems to be some sort of agreemet/compromise on Gilad Shalit. Since you were involved in the discussions, it would be nice to have your opinion on it!

Cheers,  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 04.01.2008 15:50

Unspecified source for Image:V+BoxRightSide.png
Thanks for uploading Image:V+BoxRightSide.png. 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 Fair use, 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 20:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)