Thanks for the feedback regarding the various forms of English. Note, however, that the word was misspelled as "destabllise", which is wrong no matter what version of English one prefers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.116.53 (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks82.30.111.194 21:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These are the official sister cities of Ferrol:

Adelaide, Australia (2008)
Mondoñedo, Spain (2004)
Lugo, Spain (2000)

Please get it right otherwise why don’t you contact the official website of Adelaide City Council on ipac.adelaidecitycouncil.com?

Thanx in advance!! =]

--Colin Gleen (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rv edit. The dispute about the term 'British Isles' in relation to the Ireland article has been exhuasted. It was decided that 'British Isles' should not be used. Wiki01916 03:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Jooler. Leading on from our exchange on Talk:Ireland - a selection of references were collected a while back at Talk:British_Isles/References. This isn't just a Wikipedia thing, in fact it was an English Conservative MP that coined IONA to get around the issue over a quarter century years ago. The current set-up, I think, is quite livable: on Ireland-related articles, use one of the many alternatives, elsewhere, use British Isles as much as is liked. --sony-youth^pléigh 23:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"I've looked into this and it am unable to to find a reference to the original quote or context of this usage. A pro-Republican magazine without quote or context seems to be the original source used by claimants in Wikipedia."

A quick Google will throw up a blue-chip publisher. For example, see Arthur Aughey, 2005, The Politics of Northern Ireland: Beyond the Belfast Agreement, Routledge: London --sony-youth^pléigh 08:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've just seen that this was cited already in the article. You must have missed it as well. --sony-youth^pléigh 08:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are also several references for IONA in the list I gave you last night: Talk:British_Isles/References#Islands_of_the_North_Atlantic. --sony-youth^pléigh 08:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I see. No, I've never seen the original quote or it's exact original context either, but that's not very surprisig - rarely do we see transcripts or minutes of the kind of meeting that I suspect it was suggest in. Plenty of secondary sources reporting it though, so not really an issue, is it? --sony-youth^pléigh 12:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Repeating a myth does not make it true." - Honestly, Jools, you are now scraping a barrel called denial. The citation above is from a blue-chipped published book by a Northern Ireland-based professor of political science. The source you described as a "Republican magazine" is in fact a highly-respected, international, peer-reviewed journal of economics - with anything but Republician links!! (Just browse its list of contributors and topics to see why that assertion was so ludicrous!) Really, if there's a chip on your sholder, dust it off and move on. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's fair enough - and admittedly (I think you know) I was winding you up more than making a case for the current situation. Looking at it coldly what the effect:

1. No mention that Ireland is the second-largest island in the British Isles on the Ireland article
2. Alternatives used in other articles e.g the Shannon is the a largest river in Britain and Ireland.
3. The info box and the template on the Ireland page use some other name/descriptor
4. The info box on the Republic of Ireland and British-Irish Council use alternative descriptors.

Numbers 2 and 4 are just fine. there is absolutely no need to use "British Isles" in the Shannon or other such article when other terms can be employed to just he same effect. Link these to the British Isles article - but to me they would seem more like common speech. (I've noticed that the Shannon article now says nothing off this, and maybe I just biased but I do blame the revering backwards and forth by those who really want to say "British Isles" for that.)

Number 1 - is it such a big loss? The article says that its the third largest island in Europe behind Great Britain and Iceland, and that it's right beside Great Britain. What more is there to say? (Honestly, I'd lump this with the really want to say "British Isles" lot.)

As for Number 3 ... well, this is a new thing. It appeared after the "peace" and admitedly its a though one to integrate with the current "deal". It's the only place where the absence of mention of the unmentionable is "obvious." That said, well, you may say that "Britain and Ireland" is inaccurate and misleading. I may say that "British Isles" is inaccurate and misleading. I'm realtively surprised that it lasteed at all. If you'd like, why not propose something like the following:

• British Isles / Britain and Ireland (see naming dispute)

Or a note along the lines of the Northern Ireland flags note (but a whole lot shorter). I would support more information and allowing the reader to make their own minds up rather than falling on one side or another. --sony-youth^pléigh 08:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know it was badly formatted and was about to do the quotes thing properly after i found out how to do it correctly when i noticed that you reverted the section off.

However i ask what is so POV in adding documented praise from non-Ulster people who eye-witness accounted the Ulster division's actions? Its not my personal POV. Mabuska 15:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at the WP:PEACOCK article, i have to say i don't think it quite fits into peacockedness. I wasn't using my own personal POV to say they were gallant and brave, but rather an eye-witness account which is sourced. The "incorrect" examples in the peacock article are the editor's POV and unsourced. Mabuska 15:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If i formatted the quotations properly would it be okay to have back up? Mabuska 15:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I (capital I) won't delete it, but I am just a user/edit like you. Jooler 15:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll try to improve the sections appearance beforehand and get a few other quotations from other sources so it doesn't seem based on a sole person's viewpoint. Mabuska 15:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I restored the whole history of 3 of your subpages per this ANI discussion. If I screwed up (ie. if the version I left on your userspace is not the right one), don't hesitate to tell me :). -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ooh! You have the list of films by gory death scene userfied! I've missed that thing. Can I ask how you're planning to work on it? At the moment, there's a general air of antipathy against lists in general and pop-culture ones in particular. A single editor can rework and repost a deleted article, but not only is this one on the massive side, but a quick AfD and a pile-up vote are real possibilities. The last time was - well - there were calls for deletion because the article was useless, on the basis of WP:LIST, and when the other side (myself included) detailed how it was useful, calls to ignore those arguments completely, on the basis of WP:ITSUSEFUL. Egad. What I'm planning to do involves getting the film wikiproject and the new Article Rescue Squad, well, involved, for both the manpower and to build consensus on an acceptable form. The first step is a small but crucial renaming, but, er, this is more than enough for my visions in a question about yours. --Kizor 01:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Specifically John Maffey was the British representative and not a minister or ambassador as has been edited into The Emergency article previously. It is correct per your recent edit though your edit comment seems to question it. ww2censor 22:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I never said Welsh was an official language though, and honestly, I don't think "officiality" has to do much with this issue. I just think it's perfectly normal to have all the local names for the capital city of a country. Anyway, please discuss before reverting. --★čabrilo★ 17:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't say Welsh was official for the UK, Welsh is official in Wales, one of the constituent nations of the United Kingdom, for which London is the capital. I'm quite aware that the UK does not have any official language. Could you give further information for why you oppose the Welsh language? - Francis Tyers · 17:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What a WP:OWN move. British Army.IvoShandor 23:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Try using the talk page in future? My edit comment clearly indicated that references were being provided there. In that context your reversion and comment seems incivil. Relata refero 09:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded for your discussion and contributions for the Winston Churchill article. LordHarris 17:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is now unprotected. However, the call for the blocking another editor was not necessary. From my opinion and perspective, it was a content dispute/edit war, and I had every right and reason to give the page a full lockdown from editing. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 17:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you used to edit under the initials MG? If so, I too am disappointed by your approach these days.

I am not a perfect editor by any means, but I will always defend majority practice when it comes to the English language. I have done so in regard to many articles (notably Guernica, where Basque nationalists and their sympathisers campaigned for weeks to move it to Gernika-Lumo).

Grant | Talk 02:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• User:Jooler/List of interesting or unusual place names
• User:Jooler/List of films by gory death scene
• User:Jooler/List of films about possessed or sentient inanimate objects
• User:Jooler/List of films featuring independent body parts

Discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jooler sub-pages. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I started doing some work on the lists. I wish I had time to do more, but it might be the way to save them. DGG (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Just wanted to let you know that the above MfD discussion was closed as Keep by User:Yamamoto Ichiro. The closed discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jooler sub-pages. Thanks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  While checking the pages to ensure the MfD tags had been removed I noticed that the page histories indicate that the prior AfDs were closed as userfy and that the closing admin appears to have moved them here. I'm not sure that this ever came out clearly in the MfD and seems a significant issue in support of keeping these.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:212.159.92.22 has edited User talk:Mintguy a number of times, changing it to imply that user is now you. If it is you making the changes, it would be helpful if you could log in and make the changes. At the moment, it appears to be nothing more than vandalism. If it isn't you making the changes, then I'll just have to keep watching the page for further cases of vandalism. Thanks! StephenBuxton (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has nominated Patrick Muirhead, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Muirhead and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your edit today was correct, but why stop there? Probably 50 or 60 Novas have been re-narrated Horizons over the years. Cheers. --El Ingles (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As an ex-Horizon producer I approve of what you're doing :-) --El Ingles (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to continue this "campaign", I can give you plenty from 1974-82. --El Ingles (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added to your (very old) comment on the List of NOVA episodes talk page. I'm all in favor of including the Horizon links and titles, but I think the presentation needs to be changed and I'd appreciate your input before I do anything. Majorclanger (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's pointless to argue. You won't win. Most likely you'll do what scores of people before you have done, which is get tired of it and wander off. Duck of Luke (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I assume your remark on [Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard]] about someone having said they'd never heard of A.J.P. Taylor referred to Oberiko, not me, but the placement makes it look like it referred to me. Could I ask you to please add a parenthetical clarification ("of whom I believe you said on the WWII talk page" ==> "of whom I believe you [Oberiko] said on the WWII talk page"). I'd be pretty embarrassed not to have heard of him. I read his Origins of the Second World War circa 1976. I don't necessarily agree with his hypotheses about how Europe blundered into war, but I'm certainly well aware of them. - Jmabel | Talk 22:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The question at hand is: can you tolerate the present text, or could you do so with some compression of the some sources say clause? Either way, do say so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then I'll see you in six months. The present intro does at least not say the war started in 1937. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So do a draft of the section, either as an edit or on the talk page. You can't win if you don't offer something to agree to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Jooler. Could you please explain me again: do you agree or not agree with my proposal. I ask you because I don't see any appreciable contradiction between you and me. I think (like you do) that neither invasion of USSR nor the attack on Pearl Harbour could be considered the separate start dates. I don't agree with the proposal to split the War onto European and Asia/Pacific parts.
I admit, it was not a good idea to summarise my first proposal :"A single date is not appropriate", but, I think, the Wikipedians don't limit themselves with reading headers only.
Therefore, if we come to agreement about other details we could help to resolve the Cabal dispute soon. Here I repeat and extend a little bit my proposals.
First. The start date (in the info fox) should be Sept 1, 1939. So the summary should be "The starting date of the war is generally held to be September 1939 with the German invasion of Poland and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by the United Kingdom, France and the British Dominions" with no mentioning of Marco Polo etc.
Second. The Chronology section should contain a start date of the second Sino-Japanese War, invasion of Poland, the end of Phony War, invasion of USSR and the attack on Pearl Harbour. The end date should be Sept 2, 1945. It makes sense to mention Tokyo and Missouri battleship explicitly.
Third. I don't think it makes sense to edit The War Breaks Out section heavily. I don't see any problem that the invasion of Poland is in the middle: this event has been already mentioned twice. We just need to rewrite that sentence to make it more clear. Best regards --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Jooler! I'm here to request your opinion on a rather unorthodox idea. I'm asking you because I know that this is a subject on which you're passionate.
As you're well aware, there there have been many failed attempts to move this article back to Orange (color) (and to switch to American English) for consistency with our other color-related articles. Understandably, this is opposed by those for whom "colour" is the traditional spelling, as it could be interpreted as an attack on British culture.
But it would be nice to establish the aforementioned consistency, and I'm hoping that we can devise a method that would satisfy everyone. It occurs to me that there might be a comparable inconsistency in the other direction (an article or minority of articles on a neutral topic, written in American English while the rest are written in British English). If so, perhaps we could agree to a swap of sorts (to establish that no one's motive is to spread one English variety at the expense of another); we could change the Orange (colour) article to American English and change one (or even several) articles anomalously written in American English to British English.
Does this seem like a realistic possibility? —David Levy 04:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think that people are interested in horse trading, swapping article spellings or whatever and I'm certainly not in any kind of a position to make any kind of deal. I don't have a problem with inconsistency on this level. I have to cope with American idioms and spellings every day. It's a pity that some people who can't live with cultural standards outside of their own experience demand homogeni[s/z]ation. You might perhaps see some hypocrisy there, I dunno. To be honest I've totally lost faith in this project to deliver a product of any credibility given the current state of WWII article. Jooler (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I certainly don't expect you to broker a deal, and I don't really think of my proposal as such. I regard it as a plan to improve the encyclopedia (by resolving annoying inconsistencies) while ensuring that no one exploits these efforts as a means of assigning preference to his/her preferred English variety (or perceives that others seek to do so).

I have absolutely no problem with British English or any desire to see it replaced with American English. It just bugs me to see a series of articles on a particular topic, with all but one written in a particular English variety (and if that were British English, I would strongly support changing the anomalous article to match). The status quo simply seems slipshod and unprofessional, and I suspect that we might have one or more other cases in which the same issue exists in reverse. If so, why not resolve them? What harm would it do?

WP:ENGVAR usually is cited in these instances, but it doesn't say that an article's original English variety is set in stone; it advises us to stick with that unless there's a good reason for change. Some people believe that only a subject's strong ties to a particular English variety (such as an article about a person from the United Kingdom or a city in the United States) should be deemed a good reason, but there is precedent to the contrary. For example, I strongly supported an article's move from the American Check (finance) to the British Cheque, as this enabled us to eliminate the parenthetical disambiguation. There was nothing about the article's subject that warranted such a change, but it nonetheless improved the encyclopedia.

I feel that the Orange (colour) article is a similar case; its subject has no link to any particular nation, but the encyclopedia would be better off with consistent spelling across all of its color-related articles. I suggest the above plan as a means of demonstrating good faith on the part of those (irrespective of nationality) who wish to resolve such inconsistencies. If it were to turn out that more articles were switched to British English, that would be fine by me. The idea is not to require an exact 1:1 trade, but to establish consensus for articles to be changed for this reason (with the assurance that neither side seeks to do so at the other's expense). If we could just get past the bickering, I truly believe that everyone would be satisfied with the outcome. —David Levy 12:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again! Have you given the above any thought? —David Levy 18:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I gather that you aren't interested in replying. Thanks anyway. —David Levy 09:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Senorelroboto (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Barnes F.C., by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Barnes F.C. seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, 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 assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Barnes F.C., please affix the template ((hangon)) to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear user:Jooler, I apologise if my comments on the WP:RD entertainment have irritated you. Three obsevations:

• May I suggest that you conisder the possibility that there are more of us idiots around than you would wish.
• The purpose of the freedom of speech is not to allow those who share your opinion to state it, it is to allow those who hold a contrary opinion to state it in public.
• Deleting an opinion you diasagree with is a prime example of dictatorial megalomania.

Greetings from --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey-

Thanks for doing all the reverts. I was in the middle of doing so and kept running into conflicts with you! Heh. Ta! Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 17:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've just done a minor copyedit of this article (fascinating subject). Could you take a look at the section on Coward's work disguising prisoners as French and Belgian civilians during the march to Birkenau? I found it rather confusing and have attempted a rewrite, but want to make sure it preserves the sense of the original source. Many thanks. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jooler my point is prooven accurate. So my reverts are logic and i belive that what is wikipedia about. --Tales23 (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mathematics#Early_mathematics --Tales23 (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not!  :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Nobody^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding ((subst:User:Flaming/MC2008)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article The longest suicide note in history has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is an article based on a quotation, and the material is adequately covered elsewhere. Might be wirth including in wikiquotations?

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. Malleus Fatuorum 05:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated The longest suicide note in history, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The longest suicide note in history. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Malleus Fatuorum 14:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:England Tour1899.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file 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. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please comment here. Thanks. georgianJORJADZE 18:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Galloway Evidence.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. Stefan2 (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Jooler/List of films about possessed or sentient inanimate objects, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jooler/List of films about possessed or sentient inanimate objects and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Jooler/List of films about possessed or sentient inanimate objects during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Calton | Talk 01:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Jooler/List of films featuring independent body parts, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jooler/List of films featuring independent body parts and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Jooler/List of films featuring independent body parts during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Calton | Talk 02:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Les fuckoffs. Since you had some involvement with the Les fuckoffs redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 19:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect U.S. fooball team. Since you had some involvement with the U.S. fooball team redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 19:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Channel 4 News (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Dps04 (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Lord Darcy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A page to disambiguate Wikipedia pages named "Lord Darcy" with only one page listed named "Lord Darcy."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]