User talk:Hayday
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Out cry Fire, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://bandwagon.co.uk/band/OUTCRYFIRE. As a copyright violation, Out cry Fire appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Out cry Fire has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Out cry Fire. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Out cry Fire, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia.
--Allen3 talk 13:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Outcryfire, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://bandwagon.co.uk/band/OUTCRYFIRE. As a copyright violation, Outcryfire appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Outcryfire has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Outcryfire. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Outcryfire, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia.
--Allen3 talk 13:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Hayday.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Hayday.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. -SCEhardT 20:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Out Cry Fire
I copied the text from http://www.outcryfire.co.uk - the lead singer 'mat hayday' is my own brother.
MP edits
Why are you deleting so much useful information? Your "minor clean ups" remove minor details - some relevant, some irrelevant - and also remove useful links. Wikipedia isn't like a conventional encyclopedia in that it doesn't need to be concise to fit into a 2x2 inch box on a page; more information on subjects is better. Take a look at some of the featured articles; all are articles with large amounts of information, allowing a reader to browse all the nuances of a topic. While hobbies may not be relevant on an MP's page, information on majorities, informative external links, and so on are certainly relevant and should not be removed. --User:Firien § 09:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Firien!
In the world of politics there are a lot if irrelevant information on people's profiles (of all party persuasions) - including past Members of Parliament that the profile need to reflect their current status. There is also self gratification and advancement or from bias researchers/activists or a political party.
I like to keep to straight facts and not use Wikipedia as a ‘bragging post’ but rather as its set up to be.
Which particular edit do you have issue with?
Regards Darren
Darren,
I'm responding to a WP:RFI placed against you. I assume the edits in question are the ones with the edit summary "minor tidy up". I would certainly agree with Firien that those edits are not 'minor', and therefore the edit summaries should reflect that. I also agree that some (though certainly not all) of what you removed is useful information. Some of it could do with being a bit more neutral, but overall it is better to deal with that by changing the language and balancing things our rather than removing information. See WP:NPOV for more on this.
Please note that I am not treating this as vandalism, and your efforts to clean up Wikipedia are very welcome! Just please remember to discuss edits if needed. Thanks, Petros471 10:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Dear Petros471,
Read and understood - I'm only trying to help, but in the future I will take a more balanced view and think twice before removing any current information.
Regards
Darren
Candidates for speedy deletion
Why have you been tagging some British political biographies with {{delete}}? It is normal when tagging a page for speedy deletion to explain which of the criteria for speedy deletion it fits under, especially when (as in some of the cases here) it has been kept at articles for deletion. David | Talk 13:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Reply
Hi David,
I'm new to editing, please bear with me.
I thought that I stated the reasons for deletion in the discussion pages. Namely 'Vanity' and Disputed notability.
In the current policy, being a local Cllr isn't enough to be justified an entry on Wilipedia.
Being an MP is.
Regards
Darren
- Can I modestly suggest that you try adding information to Wikipedia before you go about trying to delete it? Meanwhile see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Boothroyd. You may also want to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester councillors, where I attempted to delete an even larger number of utterly non-notable members of Manchester City Council, for the opinions of other Wikipedians on whether the subjects were notable. David | Talk 14:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Dear David,
I personally don't agree with your comments or those on your site. I do not think that you should have an entry on Wikipedia, however as it looks like you have some 'admirers' - I shall not rock the applecart.
I am purely trying to do my bit.
It just goes to show - how 'having the right friends' looking after you, comes hand in hand with the Labour party and its members.
Regards
Darren
Supporters? As a Tory supporter I am not on the same political side as David but as a fellow wikipedia editor who knows how things work here I would say he is clearly correct. He has to live with his article. He has shown that he didn't want it but is adult enough to live with it which is commendable. That you are choosing to give him a hard time for being a Labour politician is not commendable, SqueakBox 14:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- I was just about to say something of the same substance. It probably does me a great deal of harm (among UK editors anyway) to have my political affiliations so well known. Even when I put a great deal of effort into trying to remain neutral while editing Wikipedia, people assume I must be biased or (and quite bizarrely) must have been sent by Labour Party HQ to skew Wikipedia. It's just a cross I have to bear, I guess. David | Talk 14:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)