User talk:Nickthearmenian12

Thank you for experimenting with the page Talk:Main Page on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. - Banyan Tree 03:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request[edit]

Long time chelsea fan here. I have a sincere request but before that i want to acknowledge something here. You and every chelsea fan knows what Petr is in history of football. I believe and many know it that by stats, he is undoubtedly the greatest pl gk of all time yet some hypocrites don't consider him even one of the greatest. I have plenty of references through which i can prove that he is one of the greatest of all time like jens and arsene's statement but a wikipedian named Boing!said zebedee tends to be his and mine's biggest hater and is reverting my edits without reason. Please look out the matter brother. Its for the respect of Petr cech and chelsea. I just want you to add-"He is considered by many to be one of the greatest goalkeepers of all time" to the page's front and for your convenience i want to tell you that its very easy to find the reference for this info and could be found by just searching-"Wenger on cech and Jens lehmann on cech". I would be really grateful to you if you do so and in fact, many would be. Well wishes from 117.234.71.163 (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Nickthearmenian12! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 18:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Speedy deletion of Nick Williamson[edit]

A tag has been placed on Nick Williamson 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 notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

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 (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ukexpat (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license[edit]

Unspecified source/license for Image:28-drkelikian med.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:28-drkelikian med.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 19:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for Image:Hampar Kelikian.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Hampar Kelikian.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 19:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hampar Kelikian[edit]

Adding a gigantic quote from another source is a copyright violation. Please don't re-add that. Corvus cornix_talk 01:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second warning I'm going to give you concerning inserting a copyright violation into Hampar Kelikian. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing. Corvus cornix_talk 18:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who says Wikipedia isn't worried about copyright violation? Corvus cornix_talk 02:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nickthearmenian12. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Corvus cornix_talk 02:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick,

I'm jonny-mt, an administrator here on Wikipedia. While I appreciate that you are trying to add good content to the article, Wikipedia operates under a free license that cannot make use of copyrighted content. You are free to cite the content of the article by explaining its content in your own words, but we cannot accept the original text here.

Please let me know if you have any questions. --jonny-m t 04:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license[edit]

Unspecified source/license for Image:Trumpet1.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Trumpet1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 15:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:28-drkelikian med.jpg[edit]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:28-drkelikian med.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Corvus cornix_talk 03:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Hampar Kelikian.jpg[edit]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Hampar Kelikian.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Corvus cornix_talk 04:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Trumpet1.jpg[edit]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Trumpet1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Corvus cornix_talk 04:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyrights[edit]

Images prior to 1978 are still copyrighted. Corvus cornix_talk 18:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some are. In order to support a claim of "Public Domain", you would need to provide details of the first publication of these images (at present, they have no source at all) to prove that there was no copyright message in the publication. Do you know when, where, and by whom these images were first published in the United States? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you can't claim that they are in the public domain. Before 1978, the United States was unusual in that it had some very specific conditions under which copyright protection was granted. Amongst other things, a publication had to carry a specific copyright notice in order to be protected (in other parts of the world, and in the US since 1978, copyright is automatic; a publication doesn't need to state that it's protected by copyright - it just is).

The upshot of all this is that if you had some evidence that these photos were first published in a particular book or magazine which, for whatever reason, was published without a copyright notice, you could then claim that they are in the public domain. However, without that evidence, we have to assume that normal US copyright practices apply, and that the photos are protected by copyright until 70 years after the death of the photographer (which is why we also need to know who took the pictures).

As things stand now, the tag that you've put on these images asserts that the photos were (a) published before 1967 - which we can't be certain of (and it's irrelevant when they were actually taken - it's when they were published that's important here) and that (b) when they were originally published, the publisher left out the copyright notice (which we have no evidence for either).

I hope this has cleared up what the problems are - I know it can be complicated! --Rlandmann (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your good-natured response! Unfortunately, there are a lot of really worthy people and subjects that we can't illustrate because of our requirement to only use material that can be freely reproduced by anybody for any purpose. Sadly, because the good doctor is no longer with us, it's unlikely that any such photo will become available. Perhaps you know someone with artistic talent who could do a sketch of him and would be willing to release it under a free licence? Just an idea... Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 09:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Hello Nickthearmenian12! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 943 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Hampar Kelikian - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New deal for page patrollers[edit]

Hi Nickthearmenian12,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]