User talk:StarGeck

File:Clifton College Biology Lesson.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Clifton College Biology Lesson.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Bob Re-born (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Clifton College Biology Lesson.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Clifton College Biology Lesson.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release 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-en@wikimedia.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-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} 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. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. Sorry but at the moment I have no proof for you that I do have the right to use that photo. However I can tell you the truth and you can choose to believe me. The picture is of me and a friend taken in a biology class near the end of the michaelmas term of this academic year. It was taken by Dr Malcolm Grohmann (My Biology teacher) along with a series of other photos that lesson. They were all emailed to us later for free use... the photo in question is actually also my cover photo on my Facebook account.

March 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Clifton College, you may be blocked from editing. I suggest you read both WP:V and WP:OR before adding anything more to the article. Bob Re-born (talk) 05:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean original research? Do you think I had to research the fact that my school's houses each have different ties? No. I just know that. It is 100% guaranteed true factual information. And for the life of me I cannot understand why you think you have more right than me to decide what goes on the Clifton College web page.

You are clearly the one who is practising disruptive editing. All I am trying to do is get down a small amount of true information. Do you really think I would right it if it was nonsense? Please. If I was to vandalise a page I would at least try to put something funny rather than about tie colours. I'm going to find out if I can block you from editing yourself, since you don't seem to let me simply add a little information about my own school, which I find profoundly iritating. Seriously, why would I lie? You're the disruptive editor, not me.

Something else to read

Hey Warbo. Please read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors when you have a moment. Thanks! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Clifton College, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Charles (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, could you very kindly explain why on earth you think my information is unsourced, before you give me these kinds of warnings?

Your recent edits

Hello.

When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Clifton College shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Charles (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's very annoying, however it isn't me who is constantly reverting the other's edits. I was just adding some information which for some reason that user has decided he won't allow on the page. Sorry about that. I feel like I should try to block him from editing

My apologies

Hello there! Welcome to Wikipedia. I'm Master of Puppets; you can call me mop, though.

I apologize if you feel you've been attacked for no reason. From what I can gather, Bob Re-born removed some unsourced content that you added about your school. It doesn't seem like anyone took the time to explain what the issue is, though, so I once again apologize for all these warnings.

Here at Wikipedia, we rely on verifiability through reliable sources. Essentially, every statement that is not common knowledge requires a source from a reputable organization proving the statement's truthfulness. For example, in this case, a link to the school's website where they display the tie would be sufficient, or anything similar.

It's important to clarify that you are not being reverted because people think you're lying; it's nothing personal. Rather, we have to treat everything as unproven unless it can be sourced. This way, we can guarantee that readers coming to our website receive quality information. If we didn't follow our sourcing policies, Wikipedia would be littered with anecdotes and misleading information.

Hopefully this clears things up! If you have any questions, feel free to ask me here or on my talk page (don't forget to sign your edits to talk pages with four tildes, like so: ~~~~).

For now, if you could refrain from adding unsourced information, that would be wonderful. If you find a source you think is sufficient, feel free to run it by me! Cheers, m.o.p 23:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, finding the reliable source was a good step, but the personal attack, not so much. We have a very strict no personal attack policy. Please do not do anything like that again, as it is a blockable offence. Regards, m.o.p 23:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So now that I've found a reliable source (http://www.cliftoncollegeuk.com/dvd/#upper - check the pupils varying tie colours) may I please add the information without being blocked?

Do you have a link which doesn't rely on video? A lot of our readers have slower connections, making videos a pain to load. A school newsletter, perhaps? It may be easier to find multiple students from different houses standing together; you can link to that sort of picture/webpage to source the statement "different houses have different tie stripes", for example. m.o.p 23:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well if one looks at the website's homepage and view the photos that go by closely, one should be able to see different tie colours. Also in the photo I put on the CC page my friend is wearing a purple-striped Wiseman's tie whereas I am wearing a green-striped The South Town tie, however I'm not sure if you consider this reliable enough.

I've added the statement as suggested by mop, sourced to that photograph. I'm sure this can be done better; perhaps Charles and Bob can assist us in finding a better source. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can only stretch good faith so far. Please refrain from editing Clifton College until further notice. Edit summaries like this or this are not constructive in any way. Please note that editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right; if you continue to act disruptively, I will block you. I'd recommend you look over our core policies (specifically the one on civility) and discuss any edits you'd like to make on the article's talk page. As always, if you have any questions, feel free to let me know. m.o.p 00:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of the picture - check out this page for the criteria that decide whether or not a picture is necessary. Also, see my edit above - we do not encourage 'in your face'-ing other editors on Wikipedia. Regards, m.o.p 00:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I was only acting that way due to the refering of me as a child. Not in fact a true statement. I would like a further explanation as to why my photograph seems to you as not good for the page. Warboism (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already discussed why the child comment was uncalled for with the other editor; there's no need for you to respond to them in kind.

As for the picture, see our pictures guideline. The picture does not add any value to the article; two students doing chemistry is not unique to Clifton College and doesn't really need to be demonstrated. m.o.p 00:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was in a Biology lesson and not a Chemistry lesson. I would like to argue about the value it adds. In my opinion it is worth putting a photo of students in class onto any article about a school, so if you can find a better photo of this that could be used feel free to use that. If even one person finds a photo put onto an article useful, interesting or enjoyable then I consider it worth putting it up, and I would consider a picture of two students doing a Biology experiment interesting, don't know about you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warboism (talk • contribs)

Its relevance to the article is arguable. The place to have that argument is the talk page of the article.

Just incidentally, I believe whichever person above used the term "child", used it in the sense of "someone younger than 18", not "someone younger than 13". It has been suggested to them that they be more thoughtful with their wording, next time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biology lesson photograph

I see the discussion about deleting the photograph is still continuing. If you think it should be kept, I suggest you ask Dr Grohmann to fill out the form (the part in the black box) at WP:CONSENT and email it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org - he would list himself as the copyright holder and would list the link to the image ( http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Clifton_College_Biology_Lesson.jpg ) as "the work to be released". For "SENDER'S NAME AND DETAILS" he could merely put his name and email address. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Term finishes tomorrow and I probably won't see him, but trust me he would be happy to have the photo on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warboism (talk • contribs)

Well, I bet you could find his email address? Unfortunately, Wikipedia is oh-so-serious about copyright, so we can't just trust you on it (I do believe you, but that's not enough).

In the meantime... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse invitation

Hello! Warboism, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!

I believe they also have coffee, and cola, and other forms of what the Americans call "pop" :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Clifton College, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Charles (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BUT I HAVE GIVEN A RELIABLE SOURCE!?!?!

you want more evidence, try these videos... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i53_FDh9GCc (the upper school part) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjAVGjuJ5X8 (in the last quarter of the video in chapel)

List of tie colours: TST - black with green stripes; WiH - black with purple stripes; MH - purple, blue and white stripes (no black); NT - black with blue and white stripes; OH black with white stripes; WT black with pink stripes; WaH - black with turquoise stripes; SH - black with red stripes; ET - black with yellow and orange stripes; WoH - black with yellow and orange stripes; WoH - black with green and white stripes; HH - black with purple and green stripes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warboism (talk • contribs)

Warbo - there's a possibility that Charles might be planning to try to get you blocked from editing for violating the three revert rule (see link above). So it would be a good idea to stop editing that article for a while. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, if you continue editing like this, Warbo, you will be blocked. I've already asked you to avoid editing the article until we've secured a solid source (one that is not a distant picture or video), and now you're edit-warring with other editors. This is a final warning - feel free to ask all the questions you'd like here, but do not edit the article. m.o.p 00:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I've given plenty of evidence. Did anybody actually look at the photos I showed you, or watch the videos I linked???

I tell you what why doesn't an administrator come to my school and see for themselves if I am lying or not about the ties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warboism (talk • contribs)

I will try and visit sometime next month, but my doing so won't change anything. I take your word for what is in the pictures and videos and suchlike, but for now, please don't edit the article any further. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec'd) Yes, we saw them. But, as I told you above - videos are not ideal sources, and the pictures are arguably not relevant to the article. Is there anything on the school website that details the house colours? Any school newsletters? Anything like that would be much-preferred. Also, as per our reliable source and verifiability policies, it's not about proving that it's true to just myself or Demiurge1000; you have to prove it to all our readers. This is done through a link to, say, your school website's sections on house colours (or anything similar). m.o.p 00:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep trying to find some written info about it. In the mean time check out this photo of two people from my school each wearing different ties and also different from the ones the two guys in the science lesson photo were wearing. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4255389184974&set=t.100001406644305&type=3&theater ... If I can't find anything written on the website regarding it, I find links for clear photos of all the tie colours

Also, tomorrow, I'll somehow try and take a photo of a bunch of people containing at least one person from each house with their ties on. Warboism (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fun, but, we are all misunderstanding each other here. Photographs aren't the best proof for Wikipedia. Boring old books that boringly discuss what the house colours are, are the best proof for Wikipedia. That's just how it is. So please, please, try to take things slowly :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would't be fun. It would be a right pain, having to do that just to prove you lot something simple when I'm obviously not lying. By the way, please look at this photo I found of girls (I haven't shown any female ties yet) with my school in the background. All three have different ties. http://www.cliftoncollegeuk.com/images/news/news_upp_chatterton.jpg

In fact, as I've said before, all you need to do is go to the college web page, click on upper school, then watch the top of the page as hundreds of photos come by, after a bit you should have seen enough clear photos of ties to make it obvious that what I'm saying is true. And please try not to patronise me, and treat me like a kid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warboism (talk • contribs)

If it wouldn't be fun, then please don't do it, as I don't think it will achieve what you think it will achieve.

I think this whole issue can be sorted out in a better way, and videos and photos are not the way.

I don't try to be patronising, but perhaps I'm not very good at that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The Facebook photo won't work for any of our readers who don't use Facebook. As we said before - we're not accusing you of lying. This is just how the policy works. You have to source additions that are not common knowledge, and that's that. Also, I don't think Demiurge is patronizing you - remember that we're trying to help. A photograph just isn't an ideal reference. If you can't source the information, perhaps it's better to improve the article in ways that can be sourced? m.o.p 00:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why clear photos and videos proving what I am saying is true cannot be thought of as reliable sources. They clearly are. You are acting like robots, robots cannot judge whether things are true unless they have 100% clear written evidence of it. Whereas humans can say whether something is obviously true using common sense. If you people can tell that I am not lying and you have seen the photos and videos that back me up I can't understand why I'm not allowed to add my information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warboism (talk • contribs)

It's not obviously true from pictures of ties. The different colour stripes could be to indicate that someone is a prefect or some other position (my school did that), that someone has colours in swimming or rowing or boxing or rugby, or something else I've not thought of. I personally believe the colours indicate the houses, but you must understand that the pictures alone do not prove that, right? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demiurge puts it very well - we do not go to your school, and we are not privy to the finer details of it. Pictures are great in some cases, don't get me wrong - the Sydney Opera House has a very pretty picture that shows us what the Sydney Opera House looks like, as that would be difficult to describe through text alone. But can that same picture illustrate how the Sydney Opera House symbolizes Australia's Commonwealth ties? No, it can't, even if that were to be true. Do you understand where we're coming from? m.o.p 00:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your other question, I do actually agree that it's ridiculous that you can't add this information, but that's just how Wikipedia is at the moment. So please bear with us while we work on fixing this :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to get picky about it, I must tell you that actually nothing can be proven. There is no way of proving that this world exists. You could merely be connected to a virtual simulator and your whole life has just been a simulation. And you are right it is ridiculous that I cannot simply add some information about my own school. I think the system is incredibly stupid and that you should change is as soon as possible. I think that if anything is in dispute the administrators should be allowed to decide its validity after discussing it with the user who added it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warboism (talk • contribs)

Furthermore I would very much like to point something else out. It is the fact that you earlier went against your own point. I warn you I may make you look like an idiot now. ^[1] that link is to an old revision you did of the CC page, in which you wrote that the boys wear different ties to represent their memberships to different houses respectively. The source you used was a photo of two boys each sporting a differently coloured tie, however you said that photos offer no definitive proof since they merely show that the ties are different but not why they are so. They could be prefect ties as you said before. So that being so, why did you put down what you put about the house ties? Warboism (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's good enough evidence in my opinion, when nothing else in that section is referenced at all. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now, there we would have a problem, because mop is an administrator and he has just discussed it with you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the virtual simulator thing was first thought of nearly 400 years ago - see Evil demon. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware about when the virtual simulator was thought of and I certainly don't think I came up with it myself. And can you explain what you meant in your message just before that?

Ah wait a minute. So if you think its good enough evidence, then why won't you allow me to add it in. And if nothing else in that section is referenced then why is it still there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warboism (talk • contribs)

I'm not stopping you from adding it in - in fact I added it in myself! However, I suspect that mop (or someone else) is likely to block you from editing if you add it again, thus I'm advising you not to do so. And what we do next is to have a chat on the article talk page with mop and anyone else interested, on whether it should be there... and indeed whether the other unsourced material should be there either. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that other information is sourced. Its there on the college website. But still my information should also be on there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warboism (talk • contribs)

Ah, that may be so, but it's not sourced in the Wikipedia article. Inline citations are the best way to do things - WP:REFB. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Demiurge for all your sage advice.

Warboism: if you'd like, you're welcome to talk about intended edits on the article's talk page, located at Talk:Clifton College. There, other editors can weigh in and discuss said edits. Also, you may present a source (preferably not a picture) there for the house tie information. I'll check in with you after you've done that and we can go from there.

I apologize if this is overwhelming or seems anal - if I could make it easier I would! However, as you can imagine, coordinating tens of thousands of volunteer editors over millions of articles would be very hard without stringent rules and followup. While your way may be easier, it doesn't scale to a project as large as Wikipedia. m.o.p 02:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The random school uniform award!

	The random school uniform award
	Congratulations on finding, and citing, a suitable source. Great job! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Moore (educator)

So, master W. Ism, isn't it a curious coincidence that one of the people edit-warring with you on Clifton College also nominated the article about its headmaster for deletion?

I don't think you need to comment there, as things seems to be well under control, but you should probably watchlist the discussion, as you may find it interesting as an example of how things sometimes work correctly on Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright

Hi, Warboism. Unfortunately, simply finding an image on Google does not mean it is in the public domain. We are, however, allowed to use copyrighted images of deceased people if we can't find a replacement (see #10 at WP:NFCI). As the subject is recently deceased, in order to use a non-free image you'll have to show that a decent attempt has been made to find a free alternative. Any images that are uploaded under that rationale will have to have full details of their source, author and copyright status—simply finding them through Google Images is not sufficient. Thanks, matt (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Matt Bartsch

The article Matt Bartsch has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Eeekster (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Matt Bartsch

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Matt Bartsch requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Eeekster (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Matt Bartsch

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Matt Bartsch requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. - Voidz (t·c) 22:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Channel icon of Miffby.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Channel icon of Miffby.jpg, which you've attributed to Matt Bartsch. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release 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-en@wikimedia.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-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} 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. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm Mkdw. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Clifton College because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Mkdw ^talk 21:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Hello, I'm Lugia2453. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Chicago, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Lugia2453 (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at United States with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Hello, I'm Antiqueight. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Pansexuality, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 19:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Rose Bowl Awards

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Rose Bowl Awards requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Bowl Awards moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Rose Bowl Awards, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Troutfarm27 ^(Talk) 07:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Rose Bowl Awards

Hello, StarGeck. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Rose Bowl Awards, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^ [1]

[1] [1]

[1]