User talk:RoyalBlueStuey

Hello royalbluestuey ive seen you on Tigers forum before good to know we have same interests if you've seen me on there before I am banbury tiger ! Go Tigers !!

Everton F.C.
Cheers mate I did the historic kits, best ever team and old crests. Nice to hear people like it. SenorKristobbal 19:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

alonsowhateverhisnamewas
you have a massively huge point but I like to take the moral high ground its the Everton way

"You'd expect more from the Liverpool manager" ...indeed you would SenorKristobbal 09:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Everton F.C. FA of the day
I noticed you supported the Everton FA status I've now given it a specific date request here as its the date Everton won the Cup Winners Cup. Please comment on it if you agree! SenorKristobbal 18:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

TheRugbyForum
Hey man, I thought I recognised your username from somewhere. I'm also on TRF as PeeJay :-) - PeeJay 09:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Rugby union
Hey, I'm not sure if you are a member, but if you are not you should consider joining WikiProject Rugby union. Just add your name to the list of participants. Thanks. - Shudde   talk  05:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Rugby union
 Hi, and welcome to the Rugby union WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to rugby union.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including WPRU Announcements there.
 * Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, peer review, and a collaboration of the fortnight.
 * We have a Fiji rugby task force that focus on Fiji related rugby union articles.
 * Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles.
 * We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorisation, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Shudde  talk  23:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Everton FC importance
The assessment group definition for high importance is: "Teams with international notability." One of the top 6 clubs in England? Well, in the past 5 years, they have finished 6th, 11th, 4th, 17th, and 7th. Either way, just because a team is top 6 in a major league doesn't mean it's "internationally notable" - for example that page I just linked to gives U.S. Città di Palermo as an example of a team that deserves "mid" notability and they finished 5th in the Serie A. Similarly, I would argue that the likes of Villarreal CF (who reached the Champions League semifinal two seasons ago and finished 5th last season) and AS Monaco FC (who reached the Champions League final a few years ago as well as winning the league twice in the past 10 years) don't deserve high importance either. ugen64 07:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Rugby union national team Improvement Drive
 For the 2007 Rugby World Cup WikiProject Rugby union is launching an Improvement Drive for national rugby union teams; specifically those participating in the Rugby World Cup. We need your help! Here is what you can do: The World Cup is fast approaching and these articles are going to get a lot more hits during the tournament. It would be great if we could have them at a high standard!
 * Adopt a national rugby union team article and collaborate with other members to improve it.
 * Find, create and upload free images that will help improve these articles.
 * Copy-edit, reference, and expand articles when and where you can.
 * Promote the project and encourage others to join.

For more information see the discussion on the WikiProject Rugby union talk page here. Shudde  talk  05:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

CL Runner-up
If the match report was about a league game or an early knock-out game, I would tend to agree with you, but since the CL final determines the winner and runner-up of the tournament, it just makes sense to me to use those terms in the infobox for that match. - PeeJay 10:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not the convention, but it is my opinion, and others seem to agree with me. - PeeJay 12:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Mark Clattenburg
Hi. When deciding what to enter into a Wikipedia article, such as that above, please refer to the talk page for the article to gauge consensus on different matters. To merely change the information without doing so flies in the face of how the article has been shaped, by the editors who have posted to the article talk page. Further more, to introduce Point of View when Wikipedia expressly forbids it is also folly.

The format of the incident you altered has been agreed upon very recently, and you really need to post to the talk page yourself to change the consensus in order to successfully do this. For the reasons stated, your edit has been reverted. I hope to hear from you at Talk:Mark Clattenburg if this is problematic. Thanks. Ref (chew) (do) 00:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. I am sorry to say that you have a conflict of interest in your edit. While the edit may appear to you to be perfectly balanced, to many others it will appear to lean towards the Everton view, and the feeling of injustice which has already been expressed in vandalistic edits since the match in question, and naturally so perhaps, as you are a self-confessed fan of the club. Your edit is clearly not vandalistic, but it is not a neutral point of view. By consensus, what is currently contained within the article relating to the Everton v. Liverpool game has been agreed upon by many contributing editors as a measured account of the match containing only that which is truly controversial. If you are still troubled by this, I would urge you to post towards a changed consensus at Talk:Mark Clattenburg, as that's the only place to get alterations made. Thanks and good editing. Ref (chew) (do) 09:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please use those tabs
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that recently you carried out a copy and paste page move. Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. -- But | seriously | folks   02:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it -- there are a lot of experienced editors who aren't aware of that nuance. Cheers! --  But | seriously | folks   17:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark Clattenburg (2)
Hi. When leaving an edit summary, please include absolutely correct details of your changes to an article, or no summary at all. In the above article, to say that you removed a superfluous line is misleading, when you actually added to the account at the same time. That addition went against the consensus which you will have seen on your last visit to the article talk page. As I have mentioned previously, it is essential that any changes to articles go with consensus (what the contributing editors want included or excluded, either unanimously or by majority). And absolutely crucial that any content, especially in biographical articles about living persons, remains neutral in fact and tone. I have therefore reverted your edit, and look forward to hearing from you at the talk page, or my own. Thanks. Ref (chew) (do) 21:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again. Of course I take your points as an individual, and I'm glad you posted to my user talk page. However, the only way to get your version adopted in the article is to post to the article talk page, setting out your reasoning, like you have on my talk page. All I'm doing is effectively policing the article to guard consensus (the vast majority of editors do exactly the same with their favourite articles too). And hopefully I'm policing it effectively and fairly.


 * As I say, the best way is to pop up at the article talk page and post a bold statement on there, then see what happens. If I get a response, I take it from there - I either back off or make the change if it suits everyone. Sometimes, editors will compromise, which means that they keep some of their editing intact, while I have to settle for fewer changes than I'd like. If no-one replies at all, I wait two days, then post again to say that I am taking the lack of resistance as a positive sign in my quest to change the consensual version, and then make the edit. I have to mention, though, that your all-or-nothing approach to the incident(s) may cause the match to be struck out all together, if I read the mood of the interested editors correctly (it has been put forward previously that the game be removed if Clattenburg received no disciplinary action from PGMOL/Keith Hackett).


 * Anyway, whatever happens, best wishes and good editing. Good luck to Everton F.C. too. Ref (chew) (do) 15:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. Having posted to the Talk:Mark Clattenburg page more than three days ago, requesting interested editors to give their views on your proposed change to the consensual edit about Everton v. Liverpool in the  Mark Clattenburg article, I have to tell you that no views were put forward. Therefore, I have made the change you asked for, as I am now in agreement with it, and we therefore alter the consensus as the only currently active interested parties. Best wishes. Ref (chew) (do)  01:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Wharfedale.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Wharfedale.gif. 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 19:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

RE:Reverting
Thank you! I do my best to :P D ARTH P ANDA talk 13:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Waterloo rugby.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Waterloo rugby.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Everton FC page
Thank you for your support on the "fourth most successful club" issue. I agree that there is a debate to be has as to whether Everton or Aston Villa can be considered the fourth most successful club, since Villa have more trophies overall and a European Cup but Everton have more league titles and more truly major honours. Plus almost all of Villa's significant trophies (bar one title and the European Cup) were won in the dim and distant past around the turn of the last century while Everton have won honours in every decade since professional football started bar two (the 50s and the current decade). The idea that Spurs are more successful than Everton however is laughable. Ultimately however there can be no one answer about the Everton-Villa issue because it's a matter of opinion as to whether 9 titles is worth more than 7 plus a European Cup. Certainly deciding the issue on the basis of overall number of trophies however (i.e. so Villa win out ultimately on the basis of having won a couple of league cups) is ridiculous and no stats book or historian would use such a daft argument for obvious reasons. Problem is, at the moment Villa's page also claims them to be the fourth most successful club (the guy taking issue with the Everton page appears to be a Villa fan). Most stats books state Everton are the fourth most successful. Plus, as I pointed out, the Sunday Times History of Football and UEFA agree (and I seem to remember reading on the FA's website that they regard Everton as the fourth most successful club), so the balance of opinion is with Everton. By they way, apologies for the changing IP address, I'm on AOL and it does this for some reason. 92.8.85.160 (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've looked to make the argument redundant see the Everton and Villa talk pages. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Matcheshomepage.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Matcheshomepage.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, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. 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 per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

re: your message
Hi RoyalBlueStuey, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- User:Marek69. 20:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Event Marketing Solutions (EMS)


A tag has been placed on Event Marketing Solutions (EMS) 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.

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 hang-on 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 11:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

re:Kristen Bell
Yes, that is okay. My bad for removing it in that revert. Nymf hideliho! 17:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Cite web
To format in cite web, you need to use something like this.

For example, this source, would turn into:

CLICK TO SEE WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE

Image source problem with File:St Michael Gent, Belgium.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:St Michael Gent, Belgium.JPG.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. 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 04:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: PayZone Discussion page
Re your message: The article for Payzone was deleted many years ago because it did not establish why the company was notable. It was also very short and had an advertising tone. You are welcome to start a new article about the company. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to start a new article about the company, but only in your words: creating a page by taking text from another website is copyright infringement, which is not only against Wikipedia policy, but is illegal and can result in fines or prison time for you if you are caught. Nyttend (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You can write a new article about it in your own words. Copyright infringements are always liable to deletion, regardless of processes that try to make the pages acceptable on other levels.  Nyttend (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the article you are talking about is a press release put out by PayZone, should I have referenced it? RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay — you left your last message just after I left for work. The nature of it being a press release makes it some different, but not hugely.  Of course companies are happy for their press releases to be copied, but not on Wikipedia's terms — material here must be in the public domain or available under a specific Creative Commons license, and there's no evidence that this press release is available under that license.  For that reason, text copied from press releases also makes the page eligible for speedy deletion just as much as it does if you'd taken it from any other nonfree source, although of course you don't necessarily have the same legal danger.  Regardless — please don't copy text from other websites to Wikipedia!  In the case of your recreation, I don't see anything that would lead me to object on copyright grounds or to call for speedy deletion for any other reason.  However, the way it's written poses some potential problems: press releases by definition aren't independent of their subjects (and nor are things from the company's website), and there are only a few situations (this not being one of those) when it's good to use sources that aren't independent of their subjects.  As well, the article sounds somewhat promotional (perhaps due to the presence of the company-produced sources) and thus could stand some more neutral wording.  Nyttend (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of The Greek Defence for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Greek Defence is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Greek Defence until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ironholds (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Payzone


A tag has been placed on Payzone, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Shirt58 (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Logo matches main.gif)
Thanks for uploading File:Logo matches main.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

OSHCR
Hello,, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on OSHCR, appears to be directly copied from http://www.oshcr.org/Page/AboutOSHCR. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on OSHCR if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of OSHCR


A tag has been placed on OSHCR requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn sorry Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Christians on the Left
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Christians on the Left, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Christian Socialist Movement. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks! Fnorp (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox stats
League stats only in infobox. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Schlieffen
Thanks for adding the map, it does help but only as an example of obsolete historiography, so I've moved it and altered the heading.Keith-264 (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Traumatic Brain Injury edits
Royalbluestuey: 6 hours work on traumatic brain injuryin the community was simply taken off by a group of you yesterday. Can you revert to the original and talk? I have no note on your "edit". And I go back references forward and was not done! I can do a separate one for people who need community services not surgery.

JARacino (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)JARacinoJARacino (talk)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of John Traynor (Royal Marine) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Traynor (Royal Marine) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/John Traynor (Royal Marine) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  03:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Image source problem with File:Militant "Keep Corbyn" leaflet.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Militant "Keep Corbyn" leaflet.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the 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 17:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. &mdash; Train2104 (t • c) 17:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Payzone for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Payzone is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Payzone until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Liverpool John Lennon Airport logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Liverpool John Lennon Airport logo.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Liverpool John Lennon Airport logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Liverpool John Lennon Airport logo.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Isola Madre int, Italy.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Isola Madre int, Italy.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 10:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Manchester Marathon Finishers Medal.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Manchester Marathon Finishers Medal.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Parkrun 50 t-shirt rear.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Parkrun 50 t-shirt rear.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)