User talk:Who-am-i

can i do anything against admins that are literally vandalising articles i edit? is there some place to complain about admins (to other ones or to someone on a higher level?

You can make a post to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. BJ 23:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, help?

You need help? Looks to me like you're making your own problems, here. Friday (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

It seems you're having an issue about external links. It's always better to point to why the link is justified with respect to Wikipedia:External Links rather than accuse others, admin or otherwise, of vandalism. If a linked site is not a) an official page of the article subject or b) a resource considered encyclopedic in its own right (IMDb, allmusic.com etc.) then it might be justified to remove it. Point 1 of "Links to normally be avoided" discourages adding links to sites that are not a "unique resource" above and beyond what could be contained in the article if it reached its ideal length, as opposed to it's current state. Information such as discographies can be included on a WP page and linking to them can be regarded as a shortcut to actually expanding the WP article, which is the spirit of Wikipedia. If you're really having a problem you should try WP:AN/I or WP:RfC to get things resolved. Hope it all works out. Deizio talk 23:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After checking out the links you've been fighting over they appear to lead to a fansite that is driven by rather intrusive advertising. The information on them is disjointed and not well presented, not what people looking for encyclopedic information would expect. For me this fails WP:EL. If the website hosting these pages had a WP article then they might be more appropriate. The gray area here is that :EL allows for one fansite but these links certainly don't have a divine right to exist on Wikipedia. I recommend you chill out on your edit summaries and try to establish the content provider as a reliable source. Deizio talk 23:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did read the content, view the sites etc. I've left a comment at your post on the admins noticeboard, and I anticipate this being my last contribution to this. Like I said, hope it all works out. Deizio talk 23:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 2006

Hello, fellow user. I'd like to make some suggestions:

Don't erase your user talk page, particularly when it contains evidence of conflict between yourself and administrators.
I assume that you're adding these external links in good faith, but please understand that most users don't want them there. They'll be erased.
Don't post messages to the administrator's noticeboard calling all the administrators 'idiots'. It's unlikely to make them sympathetic to your cause.

- Richardcavell 01:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Body Count Album Cover Reissue.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Body Count Album Cover Reissue.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. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]