User talk:Blaze42

Welcome!

Hello, Blaze42, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! – RyanCross (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Foxes (band)

It's been taken care of. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May you please tell me

...what was wrong here? abf /talk to me/ 22:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down, people. *lol* --Say Headcheese!--hexa Chord ² 22:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Room10Records.jpg)

You've uploaded File:Room10Records.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Thefoxes.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Thefoxes.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Thefoxes.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Thefoxes.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Douglas

Hi there. While I agree with your move (Alex Douglas to Alex Douglas (politician)), it's usually considered polite to take steps to fix the links when you move a page like this. If you leave it, then there are a whole heap of pages around with links to the disambiguation page, and no in-line links should do this. I've fixed the Douglas ones but it's just something to bear in mind for next time. Frickeg (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's all right. If you go to the redirect page "Alex Douglas" (just click on the thing at the top that says "redirected from ...") and click "What links here" in the toolbox on the left, it gives you a list of links to that page. The ones left there aren't really a problem since none of them are in the mainspace. This tool is a huge help with things like this. The ones I fixed were on pages like Electoral district of Gaven, Candidates of the Queensland state election, 2006 and Division of Fadden. Frickeg (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:NigelThomas.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:NigelThomas.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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. — neuro^(talk) 20:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:NigelThomas.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:NigelThomas.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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. — neuro^(talk) 20:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image

Non-free images depicting living subjects are not permitted on Wikipedia. If you have permission to license it under a free license, please do so, and mail OTRS accordingly. Until then, the images are still non free, and fail our non-free content criteria. Please do not re-add the images until these issues are resolved. Thanks, — neuro^(talk) 20:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading a different image does not help the situation, nor does it make the image eligible to be used in the article. The image must be released under a free license with evidence of permission if you wish to use it. Thanks, — neuro^(talk) 20:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop readding the images, and read WP:NFCC. If there is potential for a free image to be created, it is inappropriate. Since that is the case, the permission is irrelevant so long as it is still being used as a non-free image. — neuro^(talk) 21:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:NigelThomas.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:NigelThomas.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:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
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. — neuro^(talk) 20:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Thefoxes.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Thefoxes.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 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. Mosmof (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Thomas and Jonathan Brentman

I've copied across my comments from these two articles talk pages (the same comment applies to both):

He's only been subject of these discussions and interviews because of his place in the band. Just because an interview/coverage states his name does not mean the interview is about him. As stated above, the subject must be notable independent of the band. Please do not make major edits (like reverting the redirect) without noting it on the talk page – let alone seeking consensus. It can clearly be seen that two editors already support the redirect (not to mention the fact that we have a guideline in place for exactly these situations).

Please demonstrate that these people pass WP:MUSIC before restoring the articles. It's better to discuss it here without editing back and forth. Cycle~ (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've given it a couple of days and heard nothing now – so I'm going to redirect the Nigel Thomas article to The Foxes (band). This is not a case of personal preference, it is a Wikipedia guideline. It applies to all bands like this. Do not revert this redirection without discussing it first (either here, my talk page or the article talk page). I have Neuro's backing on this. Cycle~ (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Room 10 Records

I have nominated Room 10 Records, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Room 10 Records. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. I42 (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Nigel Thomas

I have nominated Nigel Thomas, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigel Thomas. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. I42 (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from The Foxes (band). When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The tags are designed to encourage improvement of the article. This is not intended as a criticism of the article so far. Also not that you do not WP:OWN it. I42 (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Room 10 Records

Which sources do you find reliable? Myspace and blogs are not reliable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Foxes (band)

Do you have direct links to NME or BBC sources that can be added to The Foxes article? With no mainstream chart success or releases on major labels, this band is relying on general notability in order to meet inclusion criteria. Such links would be helpful. Thanks. I42 (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Nigelthomas cityrootsfestival.jpg

The file File:Nigelthomas cityrootsfestival.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Uploaded for Nigel Thomas. No other use.

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 15:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]