Fiedorczuk

Welcome

Hello Fiedorczuk and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Ukexpat and I would like to thank you for your contributions.

Български | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Italiano | Lietuvių | 한국어 | Magyar | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Suomi | Svenska | Türkçe | 简体中文 | The main embassy page

Click here to reply to this message.

ukexpat (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Your question at the Help desk

	Hello Fiedorczuk. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{Resolved|1=~~~~}} at the top of the section. Thank you!  – ukexpat (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
	You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{helpdeskreply}} template.

Replaceable fair use File:Nelson_Rand.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Nelson_Rand.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 04:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:DJ_Ola.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:DJ_Ola.jpg. 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. feydey (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please add a copyright license tag to the image's page. feydey (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Fiedorczuk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! feydey (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Nelson Rand

I've undeleted this and placed it in your userspace here for you to work on. I will inform the deleting admin. Rodhullandemu 17:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping you'd improve the article a little before moving it back to mainspace, but your edit summary "Deleted in error by overoficious administrator" does not show good faith; please remember that we are all human and occasionally make mistakes. But since it's now back in public view, it's still open to being proposed for deletion by any editor, since notability is, in my opinion, currently borderline. Rodhullandemu 18:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I've put it back there for my contact at Maverick House publishers to see it, they are looking to give me more info and references and media rights to an image of the author.

Just to note that you could have sent them a link to the article where it was. It's out of my hands now, however. Rodhullandemu 18:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Radio 23

The article Radio 23 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable website / organization; no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Promotional and non-neutral, facts are not verifiable.

While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Chzz  ►  12:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Radio 23.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Radio 23.jpg. 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 13:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SKATER ^Hmm? 13:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I've listed the author as Radio 23 as it was created by the staff of Radio 23 who have given me permission to use the image in the public domain. As they will be sending me an image with a better resolution with which I will replace this one, please tell me what I should do if listing the author of the image is not good enough?

Talkback

Hello, Fiedorczuk. You have new messages at Skater's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi

The author is Radio 23, they have given public domain permission as stated in the file page- what more do I need to do? Sorry, quite new to wiki so please be patient if I am doing something wrong here.

Re: Orphaned article

Hi Fiedorczuk! Thank you for your message. According to WP:O, an orphan is "an article with fewer than three incoming links", but also goes on to say that this actual "number" may (in some cases) be the subject of some dispute, and that restrictions to the actual link quality and/or placement may sometimes apply as well. In your case however, I think it's safe to say that you could go ahead and remove the orphan-tag with the addition of another incoming link or two... the more the merrier of course, as long as they are located in sensible places. Perhaps you could run a wiki-search for "lists of radio stations" by region/type/format etc... and add additional incoming links where you figure they may apply. Hope this helps. Good luck, and happy editing :).  -- WikHead (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The Playing Fields (band)

On what basic is this band notable? Snoop God (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Warnings

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from The Playing Fields (band), a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Dpmuk (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You state on my talk page that this account is shared. That is not permitted. I have blocked the account. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What the...

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Fiedorczuk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I now understand that I must not let my wife do anything on my laptop whilst I am logged in. Not a shared account

Decline reason:

Here's what you said: My amigo, who uses the same log in has reloaded the page. I guess the question is simply, which of your two statements were untrue? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.

Not content with deleting the articles I created JzG has now blocked my IP address aswell, hence my housemates cannot even log in. I am not a vandal and have always sought to improve articles as any look at my account history will show. I added to pages about music and history mostly, and I built some valid pages too, sourced independently and about valid subjects. Two of the pages I created have now been deleted by JgZ with no warning, just instantly deleted. This is invalid and unfair. I would like to lodge a complaint about JgZ and their conduct. Both of the articles deleted without any warning fulfilled the criteria for wiki inclusion:

"Significant coverage"- the sources address the subject in detail. No external research is neccessary.

"Reliable"- sources published works.

"Sources"- quotes secondary sources, for The Playing Fields band article- has over 100 press articles.

"Independent of subject"- I am not affiliated with the band or with DJ Ola- re-Ola's Kool Kitchen- surely a journalist and broadcaster that has interviewed over 50 bands deemed worthy of a wiki page is worthy of a mention? One of the stations she is affiliated with has a wiki article protected under the Wikiproject Oregon tag.

"Presumed"- there is no presumption neccessary, all references are inline citated.

"Neutral sources"- many, quoted.

isn't that enough?

I am on here regularly, or have been. Whilst this band and broadcaster may not be Madonna,

General notability guideline Shortcuts: WP:GNG WP:SIGCOV

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article...

and neither of them stood alone, they were valid and not orphans.

I do not believe it is wiki policy to delete articles without any warning (no speedy deletion tag or anything) and without valid reason. Clearly everything that was added to the discussion page for The Playing Fields article was not even looked at, and the other page was just deleted instantly because it was my work. This is not "good faith," this is vindictive and oficious.

Please unblock. Fiedorczuk (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You'd be well advised to re-read WP:GAB ... considering that the blocking admin is one of the least vindictive admins around, you'd be well off to look at your activities surrounding this incredibly non-notable band you're fascinated with, the sharing of accounts, and general behaviour. This is a block about you because of your actions and nobody else's (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I was blocked because I wrote to the person who deleted my articles, without the courtesy of warning, which I'm sure is not wiki policy, and made the mistake of saying that my wife had used my log in. I won't make that mistake again. My problem is solely with JgZ. Fiedorczuk (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

When you signed up to Wikipedia, you were required to read the username policy and accept it. JgZ is not the only person who deleted the articles that you submitted to Wikipedia, and that were found to be incompatible with the project - note, they are not your articles - once you clicked "submit" or "save page", you gave them to the project. In your infinite wisdom, you advised the admin (who had wisely removed the "article") that you were sharing accounts - thus in direct contradiction to what you had agreed to. Your problem is with your own actions - you broke the rules you already read and agreed to. You submitted a non-notable article that multiple people deleted. You're still calling it "your" article. That should say something. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, there is a disagreement about notability, but both of the articles deleted without any warning, which I believe is a breach of policy, (?) fulfilled the criteria given for wiki inclusion:

"Significant coverage"- the sources address the subject in detail. No external research is neccessary. Inline citation of references was included.

"Reliable"- sources published works.

"Sources"- quotes secondary sources, inline citation to press articles.

"Independent of subject"- I am not affiliated with either of the pages deleted

"Presumed"- there is no presumption neccessary, all references are inline citated.

"Neutral sources"- many, quoted.

so how am I not fulfilling the criteria?

I have also worked on many other articles in the project and am appealing my block as per Wiki:Guide to appealing blocks which states: that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again and you will make productive contributions instead.

My error was solely that in my absence my wife made a change under my log in which I only became aware of later, and I have informed her of the trouble this has caused and she will not be doing it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiedorczuk (talk • contribs)

That's about a half-dozen times you have tried to argue the coverage, etc. I just looked at the article for a 3rd time. Although you used extreme WP:PUFFERY and suggested that there were a number of reliable sources who had commented about the band, NONE of them were referenced directly to that source. The few sources you did have were radio stations, blogs, and non-WP:RS. The reason that you REMAIN blocked is because you completely misunderstand the core tenets of Wikipedia, and are under the mistaken impression that writing up a quote and attributing it to a source is not the same as actually being a reliable source. You puffed up a good 20 quotes about a band (which by the way means that the article violates WP:PROMO) none of them were actually sourced. It is THIS that keeps you blocked. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I referenced every source that I could find on the internet, unfortunately written press is not often archived on the internet. The quotes were sourced where online material was available. I presume you also agree with the deletion by JgZ of the other article I began: Ola's Kool Kitchen which was deleted without any warning? Is it not a breach of wiki policy to delete articles without warning? Let me know about that one, but in any case, if you think the pieces I began are not notable enough, and I can do nothing to persuade you otherwise (what would I need to do?) I will leave them down. I simply want to get back to working on wikipedia. I have enjoyed participating and am saddened at being blocked for having a "shared account" when this is not actually the case. Fiedorczuk (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:DELETE and especially WP:CSD - admins have fairly wide latitude to instantly speedy delete articles that do not fit the criteria under CSD, with no warning whatsoever. If someone recreates them immediately, it gets worse. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Still requesting unblock as per the above- this is not a shared account. Fiedorczuk (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Fiedorczuk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I now understand that I must not let my wife do anything on my laptop whilst I am logged in. Not a shared account

Decline reason:

You are not blocked for any issue about content you've created, which is a different issue. You are blocked because the way we work requires that each edit must be attributable to a single individual. The fact that someone else has used this account is a violation of that principle. The simplest solution for you is to create a new account, solely for yourself, and ensure that only you have access to it. The risk is that such an account will be seen as a sockpuppet of this one. However, if you have that problem, please refer any editor to me, and I will sort it out. Meanwhile, sorry, this account has to go, although you may link it from any new account you create. Rodhullandemu 00:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi Rodhull, now they're attempting to delete a photograph I took, and added the text to, which the subject gave me permission to put into the public domain, because it was used by a website I write for after I gave them permission to use it, and I can't even contact the party who wants to delete it, or yourself, or put a hangon tag on the picture as they suggest, or create a new account, as my IP address is also blocked. Have I not been punished enough for one mistake?

{{Unblock|I will attempt this one more time. I believe the problem in part stems from a typo...

My amigo, who uses the same log in has reloaded the page on JgZ's page should read... My amigo, who used the....

I was attempting as an act of good faith to let the administrator who took down pages I created know that it wasn't me that re-uploaded one of them. My wife reloaded a page on my log in without my knowledge or permission. I know this is against policy, but it was an error, not even made on my part and will not be repeated. I have enjoyed being part of the wikipedia community and feel that I have a lot to add to the project, especially on music, literature and South-East Asian history. It would be a great if my association with wikipedia was terminationed because of a genuine mistake which will not be repeated. I refered to the terms of the Wiki:Guide to appealing blocks which states: that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again and you will make productive contributions instead. I have only ever attempted to make positive contributions. Please reconsider. Fiedorczuk (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)}}

Image uploads

Hi. You have uploaded various promotional photos and logos, claiming that you are the author and that you release them into the public domain. For the photos, did you, personally, hit the button on the camera to take the photo or is this a photo someone else took? For the logos, did you, personally, create the logos in Photoshop or some similar tool from scratch using no pieces of artwork someone else created or are they derivative works of someone else? --B (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

All the pieces I uploaded are my own physical work, hitting the button except- Radio23 logo, which I attributed to Jeff Hylton-Simmons, founder and head of Radio23, who gave me permission to and in fact asked me to add the logo, and the picture of Nelson Rand, which is the property of Maverick House press and which I was given permission to put into the public domain by Jennifer Thompson of Maverick House press. Fiedorczuk (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You cannot prove permission like that - see [[WP:CDM}}. And what about the one below? I think not, unless you have a very old camera, there's no EXIF data showing on the image, and in any case it's a lower resolution than the web site.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:DJ Ola.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:DJ Ola.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

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.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I took this photograph and I have the subjects permission to use it and put it in the public domain. I also added the text to it, and I have been published in War, Semen and Grooviness. If you want you can check with the subject of the picture by emailing festivals@radio23.org Fiedorczuk (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

And that web page says "Content © 2010 War Semen and Grooviness". So someone is telling porkies. We don't go and get the permission for you, we are not going to e-mail anyone - you have to do all the hard work yourself, by getting the web site owners to e-mail Wikipedia.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Radio 23

A tag has been placed on Radio 23, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.  -- WikHead (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fiedorczuk. You have new messages at Ronhjones's talk page.
Message added 19:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Gourcuff

International debuts are notable, scoring a goal is notable. Simply earning one cap is not. If you care to insert it again, I'd appreciate if you add the same for all the players who played for not only France, but for Uruguay, Mexico, and South Africa. What makes Gourcuff so special? — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afriad that is ridiculous. The World Cup probably constitutes the pinnacle of a footballers career. I cannot update every single thing on here, we add what we can when we can, this is a collective effort. Fiedorczuk (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Radio 23.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Radio 23.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

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, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean that you have email permission to release the image into the public domain? If not, you'll need to obtain this permission quickly. If so, once you've forwarded the email permission to OTRS (the permissions-en email address shown above), replace the deletion tag with {{OTRS pending}}. Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Once the email is recorded by an OTRS volunteer, the OTRS pending tag will be replaced with {{PermissionOTRS}} and a link for anyone who has OTRS access to be able to prove that the email is valid. Nyttend (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Computer 2000"

A page you created, Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Computer 2000, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, you removed all content from the page or otherwise requested its deletion.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Donald Duck (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

awesome

Fiedorczuk (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Swervedriver member edits

ip user here - I understand your revision - and I apologize for the edit - mea culpa. However - it would be helpful if you could cite these types of changes in the future so they don't seem like vandalism. From now on, I'll ask for cites before revising things like this. Cheers, JellieCat (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Radio23.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Radio23.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 12:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Fiedorczuk. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Fiedorczuk. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Fiedorczuk. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Nelson rand lowres.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Nelson rand lowres.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)