User talk:Edfilmsuk
August 2014
[edit]
Hello, I'm NeilN. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Adam's apple, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Quora is user-generated content and therefore not an acceptable source for Wikipedia, NeilN talk to me 01:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Ruth Myers on the Alan Titchmarsh Show (2012).tiff requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.
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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. NeilN talk to me 01:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Please find a scholarly source which actually backs up the material you're adding. --NeilN talk to me 01:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll try and find one, but I did learn this at my school. Are you saying they're lying? Edfilmsuk (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Please see WP:V: "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." --NeilN talk to me 02:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
August 2014
[edit] Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Adam's apple. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 02:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The picture you uploaded
[edit]Wikipedia's image fair use policies are a bit arcane but in this case, please look at WP:NFCCP #1: "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." We hold that a free-use photo of a living person can theoretically always be taken. If the person was dead, a copyrighted photo would be accepted as fair use. --NeilN talk to me 14:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of Troll Station (YouTube Channel) for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Troll Station (YouTube Channel) 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/Troll Station (YouTube Channel) 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. Harsh (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Regarding Talk:Troll Station (YouTube Channel) Suggestion
[edit]Hi, If you are unsatisfied with the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troll Station (YouTube Channel) then you can challenge it at WP:DRV after reading the instructions at WP:DRVPURPOSE or you can have a copy of the article, as appeared before deletion, mailed to you as per WP:UNDELETE. Harsh (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Troll Station (YouTube Channel) is back, this time with less poop and 3x more sources!--Theamazo (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
That's nice to hear. Edfilmsuk (talk) 10:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Edexcel edit
[edit]Who decides if a section name is good or not? That is subjective and unless you aren't an administrator it is not for you to decide for that. You ask others to stop edit warring but do it yourself - that's just paradox. You managed to push through your edit even though NottNott and several others had deleted it before. Now you should at least accept if some others make changes to your edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.30.156 (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry if you're feeling personally attacked, but "my" edit was wrongly deleted without reasonable cause, it was not "pushed through" as your incorrectly phrase it. And I believe you were the one who also wrongly reverted the edit, so the edit war was instigated by yourself. As for your small edits, they did not contribute to the article, you instead removed perfectly fine text. Perhaps use the Edexcel page's talk page to discuss possible new names for the section. Edfilmsuk (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
You should not twist things here, NottNott had deleted the entire topic. You constantly would restore it (among others) and you eventually did push it through. Now you should have at least the decency if others make small changes to your edits. Really, as said before, you are contradictory: You would ask others to stop edit warring and at the same time delete all changes made whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.33.144 (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Try not to make this personal. I have allowed your edits after you "pushed them through", so have the courtesy to respect mine and others. Edfilmsuk (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Edfilmsuk. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 |