User talk:Finalreminder

Image copyright problem with Image:England flag12.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:England flag12.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 18:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source for Image:Peter.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Peter.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 19:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 19:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Finalreminder

A tag has been placed on Finalreminder, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

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 that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. James Robson (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leander class frigate

There is a message for you in: Talk:Leander class frigate#Citations required in the introduction.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Charlie Brooker, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you.--John (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing verifiable and factual information just because you don't like the taste. Thank You. Finalreminder

It is undue coverage and you are trying to spin it in a defamatory way. That is unacceptable. Unless there is evidence of that particular column causing some controversy which was reported in reliable sources then it is not notable and not even worth mentioning, never mind quoting at length. You clearly have a problem with Brooker which seems to be based on a misreading of his intentions in that particular column. You need to keep your personal hobby horses out of the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to his personal views being 'controversial' were removed and the edited paragraph re-added. The paragraph was again removed for no discernible reason. There is no personal vendetta against Brooker. He made the comments which are his personal views on the subject. His personal views are valid or we wouldn't have a Charlie Brooker page. His opinion remains on Wiki - Finalreminder

You don't get it do you? It is not for us to pick out and unduly focus on one of his columns just because one particular Wikipedia editor has a bee in his bonnet. This is you trying to impose your personal view and accompanying (incorrect) interpretation on the article. The reason has been explained. Your inability to discern it after it has been explained is not our problem. Your text has been removed four times by three different people! If you want to discuss it with more people take it to the article's talk page but please be warned any further readdition without consensus will be reverted as vandalism. Please stop before it gets that far. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working, as you did to V-2. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. (Hohum ^@) 20:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image problems

This image has no licence and no source so we cannot confirm the claim you make that it is out of copyright even though it looks like an old image. It will likely be nominated for deletion if you don't add the details with a filled out {{information}} template and copyright tag. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

Thank you for your interest in editing Wikipedia. Your edit to Template:Information/doc was successful, but because it was not considered beneficial to the page, the edit has been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment with editing, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 117Avenue (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of cities by time of continuous habitation may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Hello, I'm Denniss. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to German battleship Bismarck have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Warning especially for the offensive wording of "Nazi fans" Denniss (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

German battleship Bismarck

The content of the infobox has been discussed at great length on the article talk page and the contents represent the consensus of the discussions - it is not vandalism and it is casting aspersions to refer to it as such. I also note that your edit summary here, back in October is very similar to the edit summary here by an IP - both call editors who disagree with you pro-Nazi and both indicate that the editor in question will continue to edit war to get there way. I am assuming good faith that the similarity is a coincidence, but do not try to log out to try and avoid scrutiny - such abuse of editing privileges will be spotted.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.