User talk:Nick tempsperdu

License tagging for Image:Beasts Cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Beasts Cover.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Pâté (film)

Thank you for your recent contributions. Regarding your creation of the article Pâté (disambiguation), I have moved it to the appropriate article name of Pâté (film). Please make sure you follow Wikipedia Naming conventions when naming articles. Thanks. War wizard90 04:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Beasts Cover.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Beasts Cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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 02:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Beasts.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Beasts.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 19:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Beasts.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Beasts.jpg. 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 20:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of After.Life

An editor has nominated After.Life, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/After.Life and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for admin help

{{adminhelp}}

I just created an article for After.Life, a film that will start principle photography on November 10. The article was deleted because (i think) there was an earlier article deleted when principle photography was postponed in Feb this year. I also noticed that reference to this film has been deleted from the two lead actors Liam Neeson and Christina Ricci (although reference to Spielberg's Lincoln film is still there -- a film that has been rescheduled three times and no start date has been set). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick tempsperdu (talk • contribs)

Mmmh...no it wasn't, it still exists. It may be deleted again, although I think the old deletion discussion does not apply anymore now you recreated it with a source. To make sure you should provide some more reliable sources. I included a note in an edit summary when fixing some things on the article so that hopefully noone tags it for deletion as CSD G4 (or at least to get the admin deciding to notice this). Regards So Why 17:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It is there now. Variety is probably the most creditable movie source there is. I could include a link to a similar Hollywood Reporter article as well if that helps. However, the additions to Liam Neeson's and Christina Ricci's pages have gone. Is there any point re-editing or will it get deleted again? CheersNick tempsperdu (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2008 (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) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Wasserman Award for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wasserman Award 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/Wasserman Award 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.

popodameron ⁠talk 21:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]