User talk:UnfriendlyFire
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Familyguytakeonme.JPG
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:Familyguytakeonme.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 (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Alientraveller (talk) 08:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Letters from Iwo Jima - Overly long
[edit]I believe you expressed a year ago that the LFIJ synopis section was overly long. A year later, it still is, and I've decided that I don't want to do nothing about it. If you ask me, Necrothesp's summary is still far too long, and that there is no diference between historical fiction and fictionalized as he/she put it. Regardless of wether or not he/she is really a "historian", some editors on the WP:Film talk page have found it ridicoulously long, and something needs to be done about it. To the point, if you'd like to respond on this issue, it's at WP:Film talk page (I placed it here because I wanted Necrothesp out of the picture). Yojimbo501 (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the plot summary is still far too detailed and excessive. I've placed additional comments in the talk page. UnfriendlyFire (talk) 06:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, me, you, and some other editors have worked on the plot section quite a bit. I have now asked on the WikiProject: Film talk page about some editors reviewing it again. I still think it is overly long. Yojimbo501 (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear WikiProject Video games member,
You are receiving this message because you have either Category:WikiProject Video games members or {{User WPVG}} somewhere in your userspace and you have edited Wikipedia in recent months.
The Video games project has created a member list to provide a clearer picture of its active membership.
All members have currently been placed in the "Inactive" section by default. Please remove your username from the "Inactive" listing and place it under the "Active" listing if you plan on regularly:
- Editing video game-related pages in the Article namespace
- Participating in video game-related discussions in the Project namespace (WT:VG, WP:AfD, WP:GAN, etc.)
Ideally, members are encouraged to do both, but either one meets our criteria of inclusion. Members still listed inactive at the beginning of November 2009 may be removed. You may re-add yourself to the active list at any time. Thank you for your help, and we look forward to working with you.
New Page Patrol survey
[edit] New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello UnfriendlyFire! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
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) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
New deal for page patrollers
[edit]Hi UnfriendlyFire,
In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.
Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.
Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)