Hi, the Premiere has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Will (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)you made to
Fair use rationale for Image:Wcblogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Wcblogo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Wellington College Belfast, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Wellington College, Belfast. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied the contents of a page and pasted it into another with a different name. Specifically, you copied the contents of Wellington College Belfast This is what we call a "cut and paste move", and it is very undesirable because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. The mechanism we use for renaming articles is to move it to a new name which both preserves the page's history and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves to request the move by another. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. EJF (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Seeing as you haven't been properly welcomed:
Unfortunately, I could not move the page myself as there was a redirect at Wellington College Belfast but I have listed your request at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial proposals. Any questions, feel free to ask. Happy editing, EJF (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
CTM scope review
- We refine our scope according to the "written in the last 50 years or so" statement agreed upon a few months back and included in the Overview - Scope section on the main page.
- We redefine our scope to include only living people and their works (while retaining the other relevent articles such as contemporary classical music etc).
The former position was agreed by consensus, of course, so redefining our scope to the latter position is a radical shift that needs full discussion and consensus. In essence, the question of redefining arises from the recent mass sourcing drama:
- It has been suggested that CTM take full responsibility for all composer BLPs.
- If that goes ahead, WPComposers may wish to unbanner composer BLPs and leave them to CTM (see here for example).
- Therefore, CTM simply focusses in on those people relevent to our project but not bannered by other projects eg composers with BLPs.
- Other articles on people are then treated in a similar way ie we would then cover BLPs only and their related articles (plus any other contemporary-music-related articles, as appropriate).
The full review and discussion is found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary music/Scope.
I am also looking more generally at our project's focus, especially as regards the notability criteria etc: User:Jubileeclipman/CTM. Thoughts on that are also most welcome!
In the wake of the proceedings at the Composers project, I am reviewing CTM's guidelines regarding infoboxes: at present we simply follow all the other CM-projects on this issue. I propose that we simply leave it to editors to use common sense and avoid policy-violations. Thoughts welcome at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Contemporary_music#CTM.27s_advice_to_editors_regarding_Infoboxes. Thank you --Jubilee♫clipman 23:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)