User talk:Feedizzle

Cheating

Could you please tell me why you reverted the updated version of the page? A high degree of sensitivity, i think not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feedizzle (talk • contribs) 12:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct - your edit did not display a high degree of sensitivity. Further, you could have a look at WP:NPOV. -- Ian Dalziel (talk)

But the subject is 100% factual. He is recognised to have posessed Ferrari data, and, as such, he was branded 'cheat'. The Sun Newspaper is, surely, a reliable source of information. If they refer to him as a cheat, i think it is fair enough to let the article stand.

No, you could say that the Sun called him a cheat - you could not state it as fact. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting POV comments (DTM is a graveyard of incompetents?) is also out of bounds, whatever you may think. It can be considered vandalism. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Webber

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mark Webber. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mjroots (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Rust.png

Thank you for uploading File:Rust.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 file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. J Milburn (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Rust2.png

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Rust2.png. 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, 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, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. 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:Non-free content, 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 created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 04:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 04:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Earth. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ben Ben (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Rust.png

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as File:Rust.png, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ben Ben (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive uploads.
The next time you upload an inappropriate image, such as File:Rust.png, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]