User talk:Rexisfed

Bad Habit related articles

When was Bad Habit ever released as a single? Could you provide some more info on that? --Gunmetal 20:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fliparoo

Fliparoo has been proposed for deletion. Please review WP:NOT and WP:NFT for relevant guidelines. Improve the article if possible. NickelShoe 00:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination List of banned or endangered south park episodes

I've nominated the article List of banned or endangered south park episodes for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that List of banned or endangered south park episodes satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of banned or endangered south park episodes. Don't forget to add four tildes (˜˜˜˜) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of List of banned or endangered south park episodes during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. ... discospinster 16:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Oct 23, 2006 edit of User:Sbluen

Please do not target one or more user's pages or talk pages for abuse or insults, unwarranted doctoring or blanking. It can be seen as vandalism and may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 05:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop!

Please stop removing Articles for deletion notices from articles or comments from Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Wicky woo. It is considered vandalism. You may comment at the respective page if you oppose an article's deletion. Thanks. 17:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or comments from Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Wicky woo, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 23:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a secondary source

Since you seem concerned about your articles being deleted, let me offer you a tip about why it's happening. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is a tertiary source; it only prints things that are verifiable from other reliable sources. Thus if you can't provide a notable source for the article you want to write, it probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. -- SCZenz 02:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wicky woo looks like it was an advertisement. We don't include articles on every game ever written that has a website; when we ask that something is verifiable, we mean that it has been written about in notable third-party sources. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Spam before lodging further complaints. I cannot, of course, stop you from boycotting our website for obeying its own rules. Have a good day. -- SCZenz 20:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Lol consulting, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:I choose single cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:I choose single 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. 18:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rexisfed (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

um, I seem to have been blocked for no reason. Was this an accident?

Decline reason:

You are not blocked directly. Please follow these instructions. -- Yamla 22:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Unspecified source for Image:Lol_consulting.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lol_consulting.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, then 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, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

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 Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jusjih (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Bad Habit

A tag has been placed on Bad Habit 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 a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance 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 musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 01:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]