User talk:Amandajm/Archives/2020/February

Adminship

What would you think if I nominated you for adminship?--Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

If I may say so, that would not be a good idea, Bigpoliticsfan. Amandajm, if you think that adminship could be of interest, read this and then that. Undertake a self-assessment and if you think you may meet the requirements, put your name forward at the optional RfA candidate poll. And if you pass there, you will need to find some nominators who are already admins, which won't be hard if you do well in the optional RfA poll, as they will come forward and offer to do so. Schwede66 19:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your offer to put my name forward. I have been previously very active on Wikipedia, but have been less active over the past couple of years. I am considering becoming active again, as I am in a better position to do so.

I will look into it, as suggested.

Amandajm (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick housekeeping note - I've opened a deletion discussion for the RfA Bigpoliticsfan created at the start of the year here. I've got say this is absolutely nothing against whether I think you should be an admin at all and simply is a bit of routine housekeeping as obviously the RfA didn't run and is sitting around doing not a lot. For the record, your work on churches and cathedrals is brilliant and Leeds Castle is one of my favourite places to take the kids for a quick and easy day out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333, thank you for your nice comments! I have not been very active in the last three years. I have migrated i.e. come back to The Old Country and had rather a lot to do.Amandajm (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Reba Schappell in concert.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Reba Schappell in concert.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item 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 creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media 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 the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Amandajm. 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)