Thanks for uploading Image:Future Logo.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Top Gear (current format), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Fallenfromthesky (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the top of the page on that wiki page states that the article is too long so i was trying to break it up into smaller sections to make the article more readable as it is far too long to be able to tell Xrateddan (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Please leave an edit summary to that effect! SOrry for the revert then!Prashanthns (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia

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. (NB This does not mean the second page you created Top Gear Segments will be deleted too.) DrFrench (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xrateddan,

I see you just made the article 2005 Results. While i have no problem with the article as itself, i do think the article title should be changed. I cant seem to figure which 2005 results the article is talking about. I think you should move the article to a name such as: 2005 results of the English premier league or something similar to that name, to give some clarity what the article is all about. 2005 results is simply to broad a definition to identify what the article is about.

Kind regards, Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 11:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on 2005 results requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. 9Nak (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the recent edit you made to Halifax RLFC 2005 Results has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. CapitalR (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Halifax RLFC results achieve, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? ~ mazca ^talk 20:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Story Of The Year.jpg. 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. BlueAzure (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Wake Up Single.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:SV100842.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -Nard 23:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Nasta. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is far from perfectly good, and i did reply here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_student_television Sherzo (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from Talk:British_student_television#Keep_NaSTA_Where_It_Is) You may not see the justification Sherzo, but this is a relatively new debate. You are quoting one that is two years old. Don't get me wrong here, but point of views change. You are acting as if you own the articles in question, which you don't (WP:OWN). You're reverting decisions without consensus. I understand your point of insufficient independent evidence, but you can't justifiably use an old debate to justify your actions. Xrateddan has a different point of view to yourself and needs to to more work in citing NaSTA in independent sources, but he can't do that methodically if you are just marking his edits as vandalism and reverting them. This is the same with the Glasgow University Student Television debate. There wasn't a consensus there, just inactivity. You said yourself that that was the reason you did the redirect. This was followed by the large debate against your decision and your RfC on me and all of the editors who opposed you. People have different point of views to you. Please respect them (Copy to all parties on their talk page, but please reply here) TorstenGuise (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:British Student Television. Thank you. TorstenGuise (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a wikiquette alert regarding the whole affair. Please comment Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Sherzo.2C_British_Student_Television_and_Glasgow_University_Student_Television TorstenGuise (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Xrateddan. You have new messages at Keith D's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

again though will be away from tomorrow. Keith D (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. You can go ahead and re-add them if you want, but please add a sentence or two explaining just what the table is indicating. I honestly had no clue. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the other motorcycle articles from any year have round by round entry lists, just the 2009 BSB and BSS ones so the consensus would be that round-by-round entries are discouraged. The round number denotation is already given in the calendar above the participants list and can be worked from accordingly. If any rider enter the championship at say Cadwell, and the only reference that is available is the entry list, then the reference can be the entry list of the round that they enter at. Looking at the viewing stats for the 2009 article, it has been viewed around 1000 times since the turn of the year, so it may not have been flagged up by another user as of yet.

Although this doesn't consider me, you have to counter what a person using a smaller screen will see when they look on the page. On a bigger screen, it may look like that the table has formatted perfectly and fits the screen no problem, whereas someone with a smaller, non-wide screen may have line breaks and such like. Sometimes it's not about quantity but about quality. Sorry if the original revert sounded a bit harsh and snappy, but keep up the good work! Regards, Cs-wolves(talk) 13:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, glad you like it. ;) In all seriousness, the way BSB have done it is quite peculiar. If a fellow Wiki user comes onto the article page and is wondering why riders with better results are below someone who DNSed both races, then they are liable to change it. What's more interesting is the Kiyonari/Seeley tie. As both would be in the Showdown at the present moment - early I know - Kiyonari would be ahead on the podium credit! So yeah, I think we go for the best results option rather than the series' listing by bike numbers. No other series does that! Regards. Cs-wolves(talk) 18:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2011 British Superbike Championship season has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not notable

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AirplanePro^Radio_Checklist 01:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Tables BSB 2005-2010

Damaged ankle in Friday practice; WD then! Cs-wolves(talk) 22:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...good question which I cannot give a fully 100% answer. NC is denoted under blue while Ret is under purple, so I would seem to side with Ret for the riders. NC usually denotes someone who is at the finish but not within the classification criteria while Ret is for everything else non-finishing. Hence why I would choose Ret. Also, remember to sign posts on talk pages with four tildes (~) which produces a signature. Regards. Cs-wolves(talk) 10:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just going by what it says in the legend, which had been in the consensus for a substantial period. Only drivers/riders that hadn't been competing or been excluded from the meeting were exempt from the white background. Cs-wolves(talk) 21:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Xrateddan. You have new messages at Deutschgirl's talk page.
Message added 19:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:NaSTA.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Alex Muller 13:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xrateddan. Just to let you know there is a Wikimedia meetup being planned in York for Tuesday. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't even give it a WD; Bridewell parted company with the team on Wednesday, presumably just after the entry list was published. See here. Cs-wolves(talk) 19:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh i just found that out myself while doing some research :) No worries Xrateddan (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that; I think, rather than explode my views that I would probably later regret, I'll stand down from this. there's some flag debates here on the WPF1 archives...flags have been discussed through...several times. In case you require it... Cs-wolves(talk) 20:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Xrateddan, I just thought I'd let you know that I saw your article 2012 Superbike World Championship season in the New Articles list-- I'm kind of new here myself but let me know if there is any way I can help. Thanks, Amy Z (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

2001 British Superbike Championship season (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links to Rockingham, John Reynolds, Kawasaki, John Crawford, Jason Davis and Lee Jackson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Shaun Muir Racing, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dean Thomas, Gary Mason and Ian Hutchinson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:European Superstock 600 Championship requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Biker Biker (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited 2011 British Supersport Championship season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ben Wilson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited British Superbike Championship Support Series, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Cooper (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you want to insert again those details in the main page do it, I agree with you that we could insert a new section like on F1 articles about the season report. In my opinion you can re-import the Monza report without problems, but I think it should be shorter and in a sub-section, not directly after the incipit (that's the reason I moved it). Gpmat (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you want we could do like in 2012 Formula One season, I think it would be useful to write some lines about the most important events (such as winners, red flags, et cetera) for every round and not only for Monza, if also the other editers agree. Sorry for the inconvenience – Gpmat (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

John McPhee (motorcycle racer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to KRP

Jon Kirkham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Croft

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 British Superbike Championship season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Ellison (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article New Wave (Against Me! song) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Richhoncho (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gladiators (2008 UK TV series) Series One 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/Gladiators (2008 UK TV series) Series One until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Launchballer 17:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]