User talk:S119234

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xeno^talk 16:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Thetimes-25thJune2010.png

You may also wish to consider using the the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on File:Thetimes-25thJune2010.png, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

at a resolution of 800 × 1,130 pixels, the image breaks the fair use criteria that images must be low resoloution. Whilst the application below states it is a low resolution image, it is not

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

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. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 17:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Telegraph-29thjune2010.JPG

You may also wish to consider using the the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on File:Telegraph-29thjune2010.JPG, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

at a resolution of 720 × 1,183 pixels, the image breaks the fair use criteria that images must be low resoloution. Whilst the application below states it is a low resolution image, it is not

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

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. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 17:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Daily Mail Image

The original image doesn't need replacing - the Daily Mail layout and masthead are pretty much identical, making the image change unnecessary. Your image has contrast problems, visible creases and ghosting from the newsprint overleaf showing through the paper. The original image is clearer, of better quality and under our fair use rules we should use the smallest image that clearly shows the subject - the original image is a quarter of the size of your replacement. I will be restoring it shortly. Exxolon (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I shouldn't have reverted it without discussion, Surely there is a need for a more up to date front page from the Daily Mail ? The image you have may be good but it's several years old and not reflective of a modern daily mail page. Thanks StephenBHedges (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I should've probably left yours in myself. Perhaps we need outside input here. WP:3O or WP:RFC come to mind? Exxolon (talk)

Restored your image for the time being. Still think the original image is better for the article. Open to suggestions on how to resolve this. Exxolon (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion it's better for us to reach a consensus on this issue,

If you see here : http://www.newsfrontpages.co.uk/category/daily-mail/ These are the ones that can be provided, or alternatively we take one of these, date is just an example by the way. : http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/8828/front_pages_thursday_6_may_2010.html And reduce the size and quality. Thanks very much for this discussion, hopefully we can get a good result! :-) StephenBHedges (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)