User talk:StormCloud

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!

youngamerican (talk)

Ray Royer[edit]

I'm sorry, but I wasn't the one who closed the Ray Royer discussion. User_talk:MBisanz made the decision, so he might be more use to you. Happy editing! HeureusementIci (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Smith protection[edit]

Sorry; I can't see any inappropriate edits, much less libellous ones. Could you be a bit more specific? ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 11:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dr Who Writers[edit]

Hi, aside from the fact that the show is called Doctor Who, not Dr Who, and 'writers' should be lower case, Category:Doctor Who writers was deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 16#TV writers by series because it was overcategorisation. This new category is exactly the same and I am therefore going to speedily delete it. Anemone Projectors 22:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the result was actually to lisify, which is why we have List of Doctor Who writers. Anemone Projectors 22:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was a rude. No chance to debate the issue (Doctor Who has *far* more writes then most series), just a quick put down and delete every thing.

Well, if you like you can go to WP:DRV and request a review, but I deleted it because it had been previously deleted by consensus, which is a criteria for speedy deletion. Anemone Projectors 11:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My complaint is the *way* my work was removed and not why. No comments like "Sorry this had been tried before" just a put down about naming conventions and a delete so swift that it's gone before I have change to say anything. No chance of a compromise (like linking the list were its can be easily found) or discussion - other people should not be intimidated out of contributing. If you want to quote Wikipedia conventions we can start with "Assume good faith" Stormcloud (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our speedy deletion policy is very, very clear, I'm afraid. Good faith doesn't make any difference; if an article meets one or more of the criteria, it is deleted, full stop. ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 08:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, I am annoyed not because of what was done or even why, but the rudeness of the way it was done. Is talking to somebody first so much to ask?

The CSD policy was followed to the letter. There was nothing to ask: what would the question have been? If you disagree with the policy, propose to change it. ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 10:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's start with why I thought it was a good idea, which leads on to what's an acceptable alternative. It comes down to compromise. As I say I am annoyed not because a deletion it it's self, but no attempt was made to communicate what was going to happen. All I got was a couple of the high handed about the terminology I used after the event.

I did leave the message here before deleting the category. Anemone Projectors 12:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, the category created 8pm, it still existed 10pm (with no comment) but was deleted by 8am. That's a life time of 12 hours max. So, in your estimation, exactly how long was the message there before the delete button was pressed? Hours? Minutes?

< It makes no difference. I can't make this any clearer: WP:CSD was followed precisely. By the way please could you sign your messages? Thanks in advance. ╟─Treasury Tag►Counsellor of State─╢ 14:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realise I had to sign message on my own talk page. Sorry. Still don't think you are understanding what I'm saying. I logged in Monday morning to see a terse message slagging off my editing style and removing all of my entries. I'M NOT COMPLAINING THAT IT'S GONE. Is it so wrong to drop somebody a message first and at the very least explain the problem, you know good faith. 'cos and the end of the day equates to "this is our project and other people are not welcome to contribute" Stormcloud (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You either can't or won't understand, so I'm not going to discuss the issue with you any further. ╟─Treasury Tag►sundries─╢ 17:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Procol Harum Broken Barricades.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Procol Harum Broken Barricades.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ain't Nothin' to Get Excited About for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ain't Nothin' to Get Excited About is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ain't Nothin' to Get Excited About until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 09:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of One More Time – Live in Utrecht 1992 for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article One More Time – Live in Utrecht 1992 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One More Time – Live in Utrecht 1992 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 09:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of One Eye to the Future – Live in Italy 2007 for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article One Eye to the Future – Live in Italy 2007 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Eye to the Future – Live in Italy 2007 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Procol Harum One Eye To The Future.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Procol Harum One Eye To The Future.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 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. Stefan2 (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Procol Harum One more time.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Procol Harum One more time.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 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. Stefan2 (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Pandora's Box (Procol Harum song)[edit]

The article Pandora's Box (Procol Harum song) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Richhoncho (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Procol Harum Exotic birds and fruit.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Procol Harum Exotic birds and fruit.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 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]