User talk:Bamberini8

Welcome!

Hello, Bamberini8, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Stefan2 (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Jermaine McGlashan 2012 League 2 Play-Off Final.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Jermaine McGlashan 2012 League 2 Play-Off Final.jpg 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 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. 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. Stefan2 (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Luke Summerfield play-off final.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Luke Summerfield play-off final.jpg 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 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. 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. Denniss (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Creek Homestead contribution

hi I'm the primary author of the gold creek Homestead article on Wikipedia. I've just been reviewing your most recent contribution. I'm assuming that the Homestead is separate to the retirement village development to its only relevance to site is its close proximity to the Homestead. If I'm wrong I stand to be corrected. I have moved the rest of the content that was there into the main body of the article. If you have any issues with this get back to me with a message on my talk page.

Hello there.

No worries at all.

I forgot to mention my username

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chrisfromcanberra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.21.2.20 (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Luke Hughes logo.png

Thanks for uploading File:Luke Hughes logo.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 05:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Luke Hughes logo.png

A tag has been placed on File:Luke Hughes logo.png 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 duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 10:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Luke Hughes logo.png

Thanks for uploading File:Luke Hughes logo.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 02:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Yale NUS Singapore.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Yale NUS Singapore.jpeg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org, 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 take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File 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 created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Ely Cathedral consecration.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Ely Cathedral consecration.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org, 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 take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File 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 created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Keystone Academy lecture theatre design.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Keystone Academy lecture theatre design.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org, 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 take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File 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 created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Marielle Legair

The article Marielle Legair has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per WP:SPIP - heavily promotional PR piece. Actual notability is debatable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. KH-1 (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Marielle Legair for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marielle Legair 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marielle Legair 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.

KH-1 (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Luke_Hughes_and_Company_Limited regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Graywalls (talk) 12:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning February 2021

Hello Bamberini8. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Luke Hughes (furniture designer), gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Bamberini8. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Bamberini8|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Luke Hughes and Company Limited scope_creep^Talk 14:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@scope_creep I have not received any kind of payment for any edits I have done on Wikipedia. Bamberini8 (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bamberini8: That is cool. It does seem odd though, that weeks before you worked on these, you were working on football articles, and then you came in and dropped 20k of text on your first edit. And why all the contextless information in the lede, and the list of links with no references. That is the kind of SEO work that is typically used to increase site rankings. Why did you put them in, exactly the same in both article? scope_creep^Talk 01:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: It may seem odd to you, but some of us have varied interests. I'd appreciate less of the insinuation as I've made myself clear. As for links etc, I'm not exactly a 24/7 Wikipedia pro like yourself. I like to jump in every now and again. I have looked online into this SEO accusation that you've levelled against me (something I'm not particularly knowledgeable of), and from what I can tell, Wikipedia offers no SEO value anyway so I'm not sure why someone would add links for that reason. You might want to look at that before making unfounded and wild accusations. Bamberini8 (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bamberini8: Don't keep removing the tag. You are likely to get blocked and the investigation hasn't finished. scope_creep^Talk

@Scope creep: Don't keep adding the unwarranted tag as you will be blocked for edit warring. Bamberini8 (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Luke Hughes and Company Limited for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Luke Hughes and Company Limited 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Hughes and Company Limited 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.

scope_creep^Talk 17:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked February 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. MER-C 12:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Bamberini8. I think you have been treated a bit harshly. Can you explain how you came to be interested in Luke Hughes Furniture Design? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:SmokeyJoe. Thank you for your message and sticking up for the little man. Yes, I've certainly been hanged out to dry for daring to state the truth and fight my corner. I'm hoping more experienced Wikipedia ediotrs than me perhaps stick up for me against those who make decisions like they own Wikipedia. My interest in Luke Hughes and Luke Hughes & Company comes from attending the opening (following renovation) of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom back in 2009 (as HRH the Queen was to be in attendance). Much of the custom furniture was designed and supplied by Luke Hughes & Company (something the presenter talked about during his speech), and I noted that Luke Hughes himself got to talk to the Queen. This intrigued me as to who he was and how his company had managed to secure such a prestigious contract. Over the years I've kept on eye on the website to see what other projects they've worked on and became of their work as it was always quite unique and with particularly prestigious institutions. Also, I often walk past their office when visiting the Savoy. —Bamberini8 (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bamberini. Thanks for answering. That makes sense. It was a mistake to remove the UPE tag, and maybe you’ve reacted with indignation. I think you’ll need to apologise for that, and I advise not demanding apologies back. So you have no personal connection to Luke Hughes and company? Never employed by them? Just an admirer? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again User:SmokeyJoe. I appreciate you taking the time to look at this through a neutral lens and offer advice. Alas, I have little time, interest or energy to keep feeding into what was only meant to be a hobbyist thing. I've genuinely got better things to do than spend my time defending myself for trying to add some value to Wikipedia. I'm done with editing on Wikipedia. I just hope this serves as a good example of what Wikipedia has become as well highlighting the the growing trend of arrogance among some experienced users. And just for the record (and for the final time, as I've said it countless times now and am sick of repeating myself) I have never been employed by Luke Hughes & Company. Let's hope there's more experienced users like yourself out there who aren't so quick to jump on someone because they're not 100% conversant in the ways of Wikipedia. —Bamberini8 (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take a break. I hope you come back, request the unblock, and get a receptive admin to grant it. I think you made merely a few mistakes, like this, which was a first attempt a throwing a stick that came back and hit you in the face, a typical situation that makes it hard for people to speak up for you. User:SmokeyJoe 06:57, 27 February 2021‎ Sig added by scope_creep^Talk 15:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: There is more evidence than simply throwing a stick! scope_creep^Talk 15:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Ugh! This guy. Let it go! Read what I have said. I have no interest in editing on Wikipedia. Especially when experienced users like yourself are outright calling people liars (as you have done of Luke Hughes on his Wikipedia page edit notes where I can asssure you none of what is said is a lie). —Bamberini8 (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Luke Hughes logo.png

A tag has been placed on File:Luke Hughes logo.png 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 duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]