Aldaden

Welcome!

Hello, Aldaden, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Powers ^T 00:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Martin Lewis

Your changes to Martin Lewis have made a mess. There are over twenty articles that point to the humourist, but now they go to your disambig page. The fast way out is redirecting "Martin Lewis" to the title you gave the humourist; but this doesn't work (I tried), possibly because if the existence of both Martin Lewis (humorist/writer/producer/TV) and Martin Lewis (humorist/writer/producer/TV ) (with an extra space, which bizarrely points to your DAB page). From WP:DAB: A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix all resulting mis-directed links. (bold in the original). I suggest you ask for an admin's help. Mr Stephen 12:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• My sincerest apologies - I did not realize. I will ask for admin's advice before doing anything else. What's the quickest way? The template? Aldaden 18:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What should I do to fix it (i.e., it's hard to tell)? —Centrx→talk • 18:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It looks like someone else has reverted the moves, is this accurate? In the future, the best way to go about moves is to bring it up on the Talk page of the associated article, as it can sometimes be a big deal. —Centrx→talk • 18:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, I think it's all fixed now. It's best to seek consensus for these moves (on the talk pages) before you perform them, especially for articles with lots of incoming links. Apologies accepted in full. Mr Stephen 20:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Please do not bite the newcomers. —Centrx→talk • 21:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
          • You overreact, as "it is fine to point a new user, who has made a mistake, towards relevant guidance". I have spoken only of the effects of Aldaden's edits and pointed him at guidance, robustly but assuming good faith (and that after I tried to fix it for him). A is OK. Regards, Mr Stephen 22:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
            • I did kinda think that the bold quote of the WP:DAB made it look like I knew I'd made a mess and just decided to leave it. But all's OK now. Can we leave it there? Aldaden 22:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Yes. Regards, Mr Stephen 23:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Moneysavingexpert.com

An editor has nominated the article Moneysavingexpert.com for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moneysavingexpert.com. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Moneysavingexpert.com during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Regards, Mr Stephen 17:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

MoneySavingExpert.com (again)

{{helpme}}

I reverted an edit of MoneySavingExpert.com today and explained why on the talk page. Now it's been reverted back. What do I do now? Revert again? I want to assume good faith, but I genuinely thing this is someone wanting to make a point rather than contribute to the article. The forums over there a huge and I really don't belive creating a section on them just to reference a single thread is a proper representation. But am unsure what to do in such a conflict with another editor Aldaden 14:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for your recourses when sorting out a dispute. Basically speaking, you should try to communicate with the user in question first, and then take it further if they ignore you. I hope that helps; feel free to put {{helpme}} back up if you have any more questions. --ais523 16:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added a comment to users talk page. Aldaden 17:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Moneysavingexpert webpage.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Moneysavingexpert webpage.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm responding to a bot, but just marking as fixed Aldaden (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:MoneySavingExpert.png

Thanks for uploading Image:MoneySavingExpert.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm responding to a bot, but just marking as fixed Aldaden (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Quidco

An article that you have been involved in editing, Quidco, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quidco. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MoneySavingExpert.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MoneySavingExpert.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Scottish Fairground Culture Editathon

Hey there! As a Wikipedian in Scotland I thought you might be interested in the Scottish Fairground Culture editathon taking place on 7 May at the Riverside Museum - drop me a line if you'd like to know more! Lirazelf (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, linkfail! Here's the correct one... Scottish Fairground Culture Editathon Lirazelf (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Weapons used by John Dillinger

The article Weapons used by John Dillinger has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Poorly sourced, overly detailed listcruft. This would be excessive trivia even if merged into John Dillinger and the title is not useful as a redirect.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Reyk _YO! 13:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)