User talk:Villafanuk

Greatest/Notable
I actually agree with you - that greatest players sounds better - but there has been huge discussion on this over at WikiProject Football, and also on the Villa discussion page, and to stop edit wars and arguments it was decided that, unless the list of plkayers conforms to a Greatest Players poll, it should be re-named notable players. It's also worth noting that WikiProject Football has kind of decided that only players who have played more than 100 games for a club should be included, except in very exceptional circumstances. Thanks Superlinus 19:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Villain => Villan
Thanks for the uncorrection. It is necessary to make these changes one at a time so as to avoid fixing the special cases that should not be fixed.

Tabletop 11:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Uncorrect Villan
Thanks for the uncorrection. It is necessary to make these changes one at a time so as to avoid fixing the special cases that should not be fixed.

Tabletop 11:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Villa Quote
Do you happen to have a source for the following quote you added: to Villa Park?

If not, it will be removed soon. Thanks. --Ali&#39;i 15:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, managed to find the original autobiography now, so I've added a reference.

Cheers Villafanuk 10:28, 23 March 2007


 * That's great. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 15:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Aston Villa FC
Thanks for your comments.

I agree, it's a tough one - football clubs do not fit into neat decades and perhaps we need to use a better general rule for all. Perhaps Pre-WWI, inter-war, and then a few more to Premiership Years? Decades don't work, you're probably right there, but my personal view is that we need to find a decent standard for ALL clubs and then stick to them. Sadly, I think we'll never manage it! All the best, though, and I'll keep on thinking! Gretnagod 02:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a tricky one - in the case of Villa, the club achieved most of it's success pre-WWI, so naturally there's more to say for that period than the same period for say Liverpool, who were a minor club at that time. I think the fact that football clubs developed at different rates and all have a unique history means that it would be a mistake to try and straight-jacket their histories into a set formula. At the same time it's always important to keep them as unbiased as possible whilst getting the story across to the reader in the most interesting way. Villafanuk 10:15, 23 March 2007

Villa
Yes well Aston Villa deserves it the greatest club in the world! I just think we need to get the rest of the articles attached to it up to the same standard! Anything you or I could do would be good as I think theres only a few tweaks needed! Thank you once again! (Everlast1910 18:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC))

Andy Ducut
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Andy Ducut, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Andy Ducut fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: Is an incorrect spelling and poor duplication of Andy Ducat which is the correct spelling To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Andy Ducut, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Villa Park photo!
If you have the one with the cycle track that would be brilliant :) were i thought it was about 1910-20? But if we have another one that's around that period would be great? Thanks again Everlast 1910 08:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Derivatives of GFDL images
Under the terms of GFDL, you are welcome to make derivative copies of any image with this licence, as you did with my image File:Tivedshambo 2008-10-26 Lichfield City station.jpg. However under the terms of this licence, any derived image you create must be licensed under the same conditions, in this case GFDL 1.2. I've updated the image you created. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Ramsay.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ramsay.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, 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, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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 18:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Brandon (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Mortimer.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Mortimer.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. 67.85.125.17 (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Villafanuk! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Dominic Cadbury -
 * 2) Ron Saunders -
 * 3) Nigel Sims -
 * 4) Alan Deakin -

Replaceable fair use File:Libraryofbirmingham.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Libraryofbirmingham.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:New_bham_new_street.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:New_bham_new_street.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 08:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Regal_tower_birmingham.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Regal_tower_birmingham.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Train station changes
Hey

It looks like you've added a bunch of images to the Train Station article as well as moved the trains topic thing to the bottom. Its been mentioned before that there are too many images on the page. Can you discuss your changes on the talk page? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you left a message on my talk page, but you may have the wrong guy. My only involvement in this article is to try and persuade folk to rename it as Station because Train station is slang, whereas Station is universally ok. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Vaughan williams.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Vaughan williams.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. --Geniac (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

RAF Lichfield
Hi.

I note that much of the history section of this article is copied directly from http://www.raf-lichfield.co.uk. This appears to be copyright material, and would need to be re-written to comply with Wikipedia regulations. WhaleyTim (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, i have copied it over to give me an outline, I am in the process of editing and adding to it. Watch this space!

Villafanuk 13:12, 19 February 2010

Second City/Birmingham derby
Hello. Just to let you know I've moved it back, for the time being. It's a move that needs to be discussed first, to be sure that "Second City derby" actually is the common name for the thing, and also that it isn't misleading or provocative to use the term "Second City" about Birmingham (as Woody mentioned on the talk page last time the subject came up). Might be best to go through the requested move process if you think it should be moved. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Opus Theatre Company
A tag has been placed on Opus Theatre Company 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 hangon 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. WWGB (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Opus Theatre Company. Please use the template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's talk page. You have now done this more than once. Please note also that this applies whether or not you are logged in to the account you used to create the article in question. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Peelpic1.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Peelpic1.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 created [ in your upload log]. 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 16:21, 16 May 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Beormatower.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Beormatower.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

New Street Station
Hi - just a notification that I've nominated File:New bham new street.jpg for deletion as it's now replaceable. &mdash; An  optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 07:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:New bham new street.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:New bham new street.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:St. thomas church brum.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:St. thomas church brum.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 page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Three-spired cathedrals in the United Kingdom for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Three-spired cathedrals in the United Kingdom 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/Three-spired cathedrals in the United Kingdom until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished. Deeday-UK (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)