Welcome!

Hello Karnesky, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What advantage is there of equal-topic dis-ambiguation for IPA? Please explain. Georgia guy 02:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects for TLA pages should be to disambiguation pages unless one abbreviation is used much more heavily than others. US is a good example -- most people use it to refer to "United States." IPA is not. If you search the web or usenet, you get plenty of people talking about the beer & not the alphabet. -- Karnesky 02:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific. Among the first 500 results Google will reveal for IPA, how many are for the alphabet, how many are for the beer, and how many are for neither?? Georgia guy 02:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For first 100 hits on google groups (Usenet):

• Alphabet:26
• Beer:26
• Neither:48

--Karnesky 02:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This means the alphabet and beer are tied, and together they are more than all the others combined (52 > 48.) Georgia guy 02:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And first 100 hits on google:

• Alphabet:21
• Beer:6
• Other:73 (!!!!)

The alphabet beats the beer by 3-4 times, but both are clobbered by others. The bottom-line is that IPA is an ambiguous three letter acronym that shouldn't be thougtlessly redirected to a single expansion of the acronym. -- Karnesky 02:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dis-ambiguation

Are you going to change lots of links from IPA to International Phonetic Alphabet?? I think this means you should operate a bot. Georgia guy 02:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Divx is released under LGPL (http://sourceforge.net/projects/drdivx/) that is OSI approved. May I re-add it to List of open source software packages? Armando82 5 January 2005

Yeah, I guess. You might link directly to the sourceforge project page and/or contact whoever runs [1] w.r.t. their prominent "NO COMMERCIAL USE: This License Agreement grants you the right to use the Software for personal use only in order to evaluate and provide feedback about it to DivX, Inc. Commercial use of the Software or of the work products resulting from its use is not permitted under this License Agreement."

Also: I am going to start culling all entries that don't at least have stubs. So you might write a stub up soon. -- Karnesky 01:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your revert of my earlier edit concerning the OS X version, "(although this version shows severe graphical corruption)", I would be grateful if you would respond to the discussion that I have just begun on the Abiword talk page. ThomasHarte 21:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karnesky, I would question the utility of your recent edit, reverting the computer algebra system section on the List of graphing software page to List of free game software (sic). I understand it was your intention to direct users of that section to List of computer algebra systems. However, even that may be a short shot, because not all computer algebra systems have graphing functionality (Mathomatic, for one, does not), so I shall be reverting your edit until further discussion. Best, Samsara _contrib ^talk 01:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply at Talk:List of graphing software --Karnesky 02:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those links can be deleted. Please reconsider your vote for an article with the external links removed. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask you to reconsider your AfD vote on List of UML tools? I have stated some arguments to review on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of UML tools. Thank you for your careful sonsideration. --Adrian Buehlmann 09:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per your removal of the link to cetus (a wideley known historic authority on object oriented design) on List of UML tools you might want to consider Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style#Web sites and articles (not from periodicals) which states "Because the Web is dynamic, it is possible that a web page used as a reference may become inactive. Do not remove such inactive references—even inactive, they still record the sources that were used. Make a note of the date that the original link was found to be inactive. If an Internet Archive copy of the page is known, add a link to that." --Adrian Buehlmann 08:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That gives good advice for external pages which were cited by the article. I don't think it is good advice for the External links section of an article. If you used that page as a source, perhaps you should re-section the link. --Karnesky 15:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, thanks. I usually check out business websites on the delete list and if they have no obvious "Investor Relations" link, I assume that they are not publicly traded in the US due to the Sarbanes-Oxley regime of "open access", here the link was hidden way down in the mouse-text. So I changed my vote (yeah, it's not a vote), obviously. Carlossuarez46 01:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ya ne znau ludei kto by ne sovershal oshibok, ya tochno takge ih sovershau i na etom uchus'. nadeus' eto ponyatno. Da, ya avtor program s kotoruh Fomine slizal wneshni vid i prakticheski vse fichi, i posle togo kak on dobavil svoi stranici ya reshil dobavit' svoi - raz eto pozvolaetsya ( podumal ya ). Moi udalali, v tom chisle vse ssylki na razlichnye free tips-and-tricks ( konechno podhodyashie dlya statei ). Perfecto s licemeril skazav cho eto nepravilno no ostavil vse ostalnye linki - ego delo. V obshem poetomu ya vystavil softros i foime na udalenie kak uvidel ob'yavlenie v nachale stanici "If you are familiar with the content of the external links, please help by removing commercial links, in accordance with Wikipedia:External links". Nadeus vy menya ponimaete. Spasibo. --Crea7or 17:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

151.201.48.208 is definitely a sock puppet, and is pretty clearly so, however, the template that you put on his page says that they were indefinitely blocked and all, yet the admin haven't done anything about it yet, so another template would be appropriate for now until it's been done. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 02:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the template message & am about to change it. Thanks, though. --Karnesky 02:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that for future cats that I make. Thanks for the tip! Where ^(talk) 01:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that had closed??? In any event it is a duplicate and wildly NN. Xtra 05:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC) I thought the reason the person created the new article was to avoid the old VfD, which is clearly going to (I thought already had) delete. Xtra 06:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the spreadsheets and word processors in List of open source software packages are listed in an office suite in Category:Free office suites. I thus think that these sections are redundant. If you still want to keep them though, I'll give in. Where ^(talk) 14:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dicussing this. Good points; I agree. Where ^(talk) 14:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lately I believe there is re-organizing of categories of software going on. Most open source software are now re-grouped under the "Free" + "whatever type of software". But is it a good idea to call them 'Free' but not 'Open source'? -- Because to laymen, they may not understand the meaning of Free and will regard it as Freeware.

Case in point, IBM now offers DB2 as free (freeware) database and should we use the term "Free database management system" to categorize DB2 as well? I will suggest use the term open source instead of free to avoid confusion. While "Free software" is a well-recognized term as it has been used a lot in the media, "Free database management system" does not imply anything open source because the term "Free", when used alone, is still ambigous. - Zero0w 10:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Zero0w above that categorising open source software as free is confusing (and I'm a long-standing Linux fan currently typing this on a Kubuntu machine). When I saw you had recategorised @Mail as Free, I went to their website expecting to find an announcement that it was available without charge.-gadfium 01:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has been moved to Category_talk:Free_software#Free vs. open source --Karnesky 01:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification.-gadfium 01:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you reversed a change I made on the Microscope image processing page. I had added a link to CellProfiler software, a project I was involved in starting - I am not sure why it was removed, although the notation 'rv ad' I think means you might have considered it an ad? If so, it's not commercial software and other than NIH Image/ImageJ (whose link I just added also), it is the only free software for this application. So, I think it's nice to have them both linked. I hope you agree! Have a nice day. 18.4.1.76 20:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)anniebiogirl[reply]

Replying here, since you didn't sign in when you added that. It was nothing against CellProfiler, in particular. It was just the list of software was getting somewhat long & the phrasing seemed to be such to attract spam. I have taken a more agressive cleanup of removing ALL software & suggesting that, if it is to be re-added, it go in a new section (or, preferably, a new cat be setup for all analysis programs). --Karnesky 21:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, good idea. I just added both free programs, CellProfiler and ImageJ to the List_of_open_source_software_packages page. Adding a list to the bottom of the Microscope image processing page would still be a good idea I think, since the open-source page will of course not list the commercial software. But I am not confident enough in my ability to add things to pages and I am not sure if that's exactly what you were suggesting, so perhaps I will leave it up to you to start a list? Thanks, --User:Anniebiogirl Anniebiogirl 21:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not watching the page. Please see my additions to the talk page.

Hot dogs may be boiled, for sure, but "chicago hot dogs" are supposed to be steamed below the boiling point. All Chicago hot dogs stands cook dogs using steam heat, well below the boiling point, not boiling water. Can you fix it? Thanks.Yukirat 06:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karnesky, can you help take a look at the talk pages of Talk:Xara Xtreme LX and Talk:Inkscape? I disagree with Chealer on whether certain external links should be kept on both articles. And I believe we can't come to agreement based on lack of objective "relevance" criteria from the discussion. In many case, it's just calling of "not sufficiently relevant" and no further discussion on that. Can you help take a look? Thanks! --Zero0w 08:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karnesky, i would like to know your reasoning behind the repeated removal of the link to my IBM Model M forum? it pertains to the topic 100%, it is valid to the subject. i have tried to email you twice for an explanation yet you refuse to reply. do you have something against me trying to gather fans of these great keyboards together in one place? i will also point out your reason for removal is "not notable". have you bothered to check modelm.org and notice that it has been broken for well over a year and has no contact information?

MasterKat 07:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know that you should add comments on reversions, don't you? Just reverting the changes of others who are themselves not violating wikipedia rules is considered vandalism. As I see on this page you are doing this regularly. Please stop doing this and add comments to reversions in the future. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertRezabek (talk • contribs)

I do leave comments on a majority of my edits, including those listed on this page. I also left a comment regarding your spamming a non notable link on the 7-zip page. --Karnesky 11:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's true, I am the developer of the program in question. If I wanted to conceal this fact, I wouldn't have used my real name, would I? You may not know this, but BetterZip is the only 7-zip program with a graphical user interface comparable to Igor's Windows program for the Mac. So, I do think that it is a relevant link and definitely not spam. Are you some higher instance on Wikipedia that has some sort of democratically assigned power to declare other user's additions as spam? (This is not meant as cynicism, I really just don't know).--RobertRezabek 12:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither article needs this section: It is not Wikipedia's role to provide a list of lesser-known products on a popular product page. The Microsoft Office article already links to articles on both OpenOffice.org (the most popular alternative) and List of office suites (everything else). Oo.o already links to Microsoft Office (the most popular alternative) and NeoOffice (a Macintosh-native port). If there are more native ports, it makes sense to link to them too. But attempting to synchronize a list of office suites across multiple articles is neither necessary nor particularly maintainable. Additionally, I proposed this merge on the MSO article some time ago. The right time to discuss it would have been then, rather than reverting after I finally got around to doing it. -- Steven Fisher 16:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't post a discussion for the merge, which would have been appropriate. The merge tage was up for about a week, which is really the bare minimum to perform the change with no discussion. I think it is worth discussing the point. The section has been in the articles for some time with discussion of how to keep it non-biased, rather than whether or not it belongs. --Karnesky 17:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(My reply removed.) I see you've created a talk section on this. I've moved my points there. Thank you. -- Steven Fisher 18:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you removed links from "Microscope image processing" which I just added to resources which contain information on digital microsocopy. How to define their (ir-)relevance and justify their validity (or not) for inclusion/exclusion on this page?Pvosta 14:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the links were about microscopy in general, and not image processing in particular. This is particularly a problem for pages that are just lists of links. Furthermore, The number of external links in that article was getting excessive. I think the links which are currently there are pretty good--topical & informative. --Karnesky 14:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karnesky, thank you for the clarification and helping a newbie.Pvosta 14:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a bunch of entries from the Requested moves page here, though I'm not seeing any action on them nor outright rejections. Was this a mistake, or am I missing something? --Calton | Talk 00:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely wasn't intentional. Thanks for catching it. --Karnesky 00:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - Just a friendly note here. I hope you don't mind that I added this edit to User:KarBOT - I was about to block it until I realized that there was some discussion about its operation. See you around! --HappyCamper 22:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. --Karnesky 22:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen some articles with a pronounciation as

(International Phonetic Alphabet: [pei˨˩˦ tɕɪŋ˥˥]).

You may consider adding this to your bots' automatic disambiguation. --Iamunknown 00:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The Beijing article is not an example of this. I used the IPA pronouncation of Beijing as an example to fill the brackets.

I see that KarBot is editing User Talk Pages. Is this deliberate? Bluap 13:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There is a desire to expand IPA in all namesspaces. Let me know if specific pages should be excluded. Thanks! --Karnesky 14:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that IPA already directs to International phonetic alphabet, isn't it sort of pointless to have Karbot fix the links? AEuSoes1 21:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a proposal to no longer have that redirect, as "IPA" more often than not refers to something other than the alphabet. Even if the proposal is not accepted, this was not pointlss. In addition to removing the redirect:

• There were dozens of articles that used IPA to refer to something other than the alphabet
• Articles were made more consistent through the use of the IPA2 template. This has a link to IPA, eliminates differences in delimiters ('//' vs '[]'), etc.

--Karnesky 22:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, sounds good to me. AEuSoes1 23:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please restrict KarBOT to main namespace articles only. Thank you. arj 17:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern. KarBOT was authorized for a one time run, which it has already completed, so I don't think you have anything to worry about in the future. There was some use of IPA outside of the main namespace (some of which didn't refer to the alphabet) which I chose to carefully (through manual assistance) cleanup. I am not aware of any mistaken edits outside the main space & your own page seems fine. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks again for your concern. --Karnesky 17:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, if you are doing bots in the future, leave talk pages and talk page archives alone, especially in user space. - Jmabel | Talk 04:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please revisit Quidam; I had to revert your edits today because you apparently inadvertently deleted a significant portion of the bottom of the page's content. It seems like you were only trying to do something with the IPA tag though. Please be more careful next time.--Funhistory 04:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Karnesky. If you google "helicon filter", you'll find that the search yields about 80,000 hits. As such, it seems to meet notability standards implied by the constituency of the list of raster graphics editors, which includes software such as Ability Photopaint (19,100 hits), CodedColor (96,600), ACD Canvas (25,400), and WinImages (17,400). I got this software a few weeks ago, and it certainly matches the quality and comprehensiveness of leading photo-editing software. It's fairly competitive and has received considerable public coverage and exposure (see here, for example). (By the way, I found a photozone poll that indicates that Helicon Filter is the fifth most popular tool for noise and grain reduction [2]). Althepal 21:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation is that the category IBM hardware is about machines that IBM built and IBM built IBM ThinkPads. Whatever Lenovo does with ThinkPads will be in some new article; I would not expect this article to be updated for Lenovo products. If we apply the logic "sold, so it's not IBM anymore", then a lot of IBM history disappears -- all the Time Division clocks for example.

Alternately, if you believe the article is not about IBM ThinkPads, then shouldn't we remove the IBM hardware category?

thanks, 69.106.234.9 06:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page for discussion prior to the move. The article already talks about Lenovo (in addition to IBM). The cat is a different discussion. --Karnesky 15:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Lenovo is already in the article. But it should be done as a transition or the article split. Anyway, none of this is significant, it will all get straightened out in 5 years or so. Thanks again.69.106.234.9 17:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already expressed my points in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ThinkPad#Reverts . Your modifications were biased and you are so radical to any negative messages for Thinkpad. I have to keep it right to keep the integrity of wikipedia. --Leo 02:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have assumed good faith on your part & expect the same in return (particularly as I've added both positive and negative messages to the article & you have only added negative messages). --Karnesky 03:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karnesky, can you explain to me the logic for not linking directly to the dtabases from the list, but making the user go first to the page for the specific database, and only then to the link? DGG 03:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is fairly common practice for list pages--it prevents accusations of being a link directory/WP:NOT a list of links, prevents spam, etc. It also directs people to the article, which will have the most up-to-date link for the subject matter at hand (pages with many external links tend to fall out of date do to poor maintenance if URLs change). Can you explain any objections to this? --Karnesky 03:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on the article page, to centralize discussion there. Before making this many changes, no matter how justified you thought you are, you should have consulted first--and then we wouldnt need all this. I think perhaps we could be useful allies, in a sense, because I too like to get rid of junk. DGG 02:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue to follow WP:BOLD & encourage you to do the same. --Karnesky 02:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have apologized on my user talk page for some language I should not have used even in User space. Not to let that prejudice the discussion, there are many pieces of advice given in the policys etc about cooperative editing--I know I get my way more if I talk first ;) and it does getting people all annoyed and nastier than the occassion warrants..;)DGG 04:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the apology. I'm not so concerned about getting my way. --Karnesky 17:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a listing without an article is the way to do it. They're worth a mention, & your preference to not list ones without an article isn't policy. BOLD does not equal revert wars. Main reason I want to list them is to be able to deal with complaints by showing we have flexibility. DGG 01:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still maintain that we need some objective criteria to keep the lists clean. In the specific case of Aigaion, I suggested that the author rewrite the page, so this should be moot. --Karnesky 02:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am working on a rewrite of the article. Will probably put it up in main space on Monday, 15th. Please have a look at it at User:Wietseb/Sandbox. Thanks for any comments, Wietseb 14:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Excellent idea of categorizing the reference software managers. One suggestion: Maybe rename the PHP category to web-based or something like that? The systems (well, at least Aigaion :-)) not only use PHP, but also mysql, javascript, ajax, ... Wietseb 08:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning was that the primary languages is PHP (all have MySQL & javascript and refbase even has a perl command line interface). I also wanted to differentiate these from (i)the tools which are primarily web services (Connotea) and (ii)the tools which could be used with a web interface, but also a traditional desktop interface (some of the perl/python/java apps). Feel free to change it, but I don't think that it should merely be "web-based" due to these two points. --Karnesky 14:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is a great page for anybody who want to select a good software. May i suggest to add tellico in the list because this more general software can handle bibliography and even import DB in various format : referencer, bibtex, bibtexml,... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.198.153 (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest you either keep an eye on new software developments or do not delete additions made by the community. True, WP is not for ads, and since this is an encyclopedia, articles must be neutral. But restricting on WHAT is being included is yet another story. I am missing WibTeX in the list which has some features other Reference Management System do not seem to have. It's free for up to 30 records.Zxmwc24 (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we restrict what is included! Refer to WP:NOTDIR: we require notability for inclusion. --Karnesky (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Karnesky,

why are you removing FlexPro from the list of graphing software all the time? FlexPro is a software numerical analysis AND presentation. That's why i've added it to both categories. What do you mean with main category? Some tools are multiple purpose and therefore need to be listed in different categories. Rw6410 14:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karnesky. I notice you reverted my edit to Mount Hood. I didn't feel strongly about my edit and removing it is fine—it was a minor layout tweak that will look funny on wide screen browsers anyway. But why did your edit summary say rv linkspam? —EncMstr 01:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. It was an accident--I was trying to revert linkspam from 24.21.148.229. --Karnesky 01:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! That explains it. Thanks. —EncMstr 05:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Karnesky. You asked a question about the avalanche-center.org linkspam in your edit summary [3]. It is a spam campaign, check out this report for more details. A bunch of other domains are involved too. I would also like to take this opportunity to invite you to join Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam, it is a lot of fun and people there are very friendly. (Requestion 22:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for removing the catagory from Helicon Filter. I guess I just didn't know what was ment by "free" there. I'm glad you explained it. Althepal 18:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice work--much appreciated. DGG 06:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that, great work! Wietseb 08:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1.On 9 March you edited the /List_of_backup_software page, removing the entries for the product SyncBackSE. The log comment was 'rv linkspam' and 'rv. please don't list it twice'

To confirm, was the direct link to our site the reason for the deletion?

It might be good to have the rule for formatting such entries made visible when one is editing the pages. I don't see it referenced (but will adhere to it.)

2. SyncBackSE was listed under both "Small network" and "Single system" sections, as it applies to both. Is that prohibited?

3. There is a "free software" section, but no "freeware" section. We also have free, nonag backup software. If there isn't a particular reason for not having a freeware section, having one would be a service to readers.

TIA Singarick 11:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the the correct way of sending a talk message? If not, please delete it. Karnesky: View the Thinkpad discussion page for my response. Thinkweird 18:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add it to the bottom of the page & please note that most people subscribe to talk/article pages they've edited, so there's little reason to send this kind of message. --Karnesky 18:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr. Karnesky,

This is in reference to the GemIdent page. I've put the original site's text under GFDL (www.gemident.net) I appreciate your concern about notability. Many people are using GemIdent - what "proof" exactly do you need that it's notable. As far as bias is concerned, it's an open source project - no money is made on it. Please keep this discussion open and respond

Adam 69.181.107.231 05:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Way4thesub[reply]

I'm glad you resolved licensing issues.

What number is "many" people? Did you read WP:NOTABILITY (the official guideline), WP:SOFTWARE (a historical proposal which gives examples for notability of software), and WP:WEB? I.e.: are your independent and reliable secondary sources which talk about GemIndent? Has GemIndent won any awards? Is GemIndent distributed by someone other than you (in a Linux distro, for example)? Since it is relatively new (less than a year old & without a license!), I think it may be difficult for you to prove notability. This doesn't mean the program isn't good or useful (it has a few functions I'd like to play with sometime), just that it isn't (yet) notable.

Also note: if this is your final license, many would not consider it to be free or open source: commercial redistribution is prohibited & distribution of derivative works is highly restricted. --Karnesky 15:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If software is notable why doesn't it have an article? --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 09:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, not everything that is notable has an article in Wikipedia yet! If redlinks points to an article that has been deleted, I've diligently removed them. Otherwise, they're useful to start stubs. There's no policy that says lists must be link free & your removal of notable open source projects such as rsnapshot and rdiff-backup seems silly when the majority of products in the proprietary sections are redlinks that are less notable (though possibly O.K.). --16:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Could you please clarify on the reason for removal of duplicate entries of Vembu StoreGrid in the 'List of Backup Software' article. Each entry highlighted a different product edition (please see http://www.vembu.com/storegrid/backup-solutions.html) - a similar approach to that adopted by IBM, Veritas/Symantec, Commvault, Genie Backup, etc - all of whom have different editions listed on the same page. Thanks. Luxit 10:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the products listed once could backup multiple classes. For both self-consistency & consistency with other lists, they are listed under their primary purpose. During list cleanups, multiple mentions are routinely dumped & I think there is some discussion of this already. Thank you for the info on Genie Backup--the anonymous user who was re-adding that was quite persistent. IBM is only listed once for Tivoli & once for their mainframe backup (which is very much different from Tivoli). --Karnesky 12:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was the politest revert I have ever received. I understand your rationale and agree. The page is excellent. Consider making a summary comment as the data in the tables takes a while to get through. For example, I think that based on

1. systems that store your reference databases on their server which increases portability aand ability to share
2. systems that access the dom of the document in your browser window and use bookmarklets or Firefox plugin to input content by parsing PMIDs or ISBNs, etc
3. systems that can generate a bibliography
4. cost

One can reasonably recommend RefWorks (especially if you have an institutional license) if portability is important to the user; otherwise Zotero is a good option (if its limited bibliographic citation formats is not a problem).

I am trying to get in the habit of preceding content with a summary in order to aid readability; however, this may not meet your needs if you goal is more to present the facts alone.Badgettrg 03:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Spare Backup (a red link) get to stay in the list (and that too, at the top of a supposedly sorted list), whereas Syncsort, a company in business since the late 1960s, gets chucked out? I understand why you removed the entry under 'Small Networks' (based on what you've mentioned in previous posts), but I think the 'Large Networks' entry should stay. Syncsort's Backup Express is the only 'real' backup solution for Novell Netware and older UNIXs like SGI, IRIX, AIX etc. And it has always featured in the top 5/6 enterprise backup solutions available in the past decade! Please Google it if you want to check its credentials. Vadakr 03:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to remove Spare Backup too! If SyncSort is as notable as you claim, surely it warrants an actual article? --03:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please take another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of portable software (2nd nomination) when you can? You previously left a comment there. I have vastly edited the article in question, and left comments there on the AfD--you may wish to review the situation again in light of this. Thank you. • Lawrence Cohen 16:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Xawtv-screenshot.png. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image 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 the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Liftarn 10:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, please give a reason for a deletion. Otherwise it can be considered vandalism. --Zeamays (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL was my reason in both cases. I didn't link to it for my first rv, but I did say "rv el." Sorry if you hadn't encountered this abbreviation before. --Karnesky (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

Excuse me, but rv el makes no sense to me. I understand your reason, since you gave it in text, but WP:EL is about external references, which had nothing to do with your deletion. --Zeamays (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again: Sorry for using jargon that you didn't understand. You had included an external link to Red Hots in your edit. This was the biggest gripe I had when I reverted it. --Karnesky (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting the merge discussion link on article = office suites —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjiv swarup (talk • contribs) 09:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disrupting Wikipedia, and I resent the accusation. I'm not just going to take your word for it; I would like to see more than one author or reliable source talk about this subject. Can you find these sources? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already added a third source from a second author in a second publication. I'm sorry if I did not assume good faith. I was most annoyed that you re-added the notability tag again and again (while ignoring discussion on the talk page). --Karnesky (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely certain, but I think notability is a bit large of a concern than the types of tags used. The purpose of the tags is to get the attention of other users so as to inspire effort of their part, not just to be readers. I'm sorry if the manner in which I tagged the article upsets you, but I think that this is a very minor issue to which you easily and quickly responded. Issue resolved, moving on. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to keep your edit summaries civil, and assume good faith. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please link to the edit that you find objectionable? Many of my recent edits are WP:EL cleanup, so the most "objectionable" summary I can think of is "linkspam." Sorry if this offended you. --Karnesky (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Exidor Tedickey (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the RfC on Exidor. Since you were one of the certifiers, I am pointing you to this to explain the outcome. Wizardman 17:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had missed that. I still think it is deletionworthy, but wont argue with a legitimate AfD otherwise. Thanx, 68.39.174.238 (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought Image:RickettsCrest.jpg was tagged? The original author has not been active on WP for three years & I don't know if you are using the two-year old warning on his talk page as sufficient notice. In the future, can you please notify pages that use images you plan to delete (such as Talk:House System at the California Institute of Technology? Thanks. --Karnesky (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?

I did not tag this image for deletion; FairuseBot did. It should have left a message to the uploader and placed ((deletable image-caption)) in the image's caption. Please contact Carnildo if you have a problem with FairuseBot.

While Image:RickettsCrest.jpg had an image copyright tag, it lacked a rationale explaining how that particular use of the image was valid and compliant with WP:NFCC. All non-free images on Wikipedia must have a non-free use rationale. If you like, I can undelete the image so that you can add a rationale. See WP:NFURG for guidelines on rationales. Stifle (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FairuseBot made no notification. The image should be restored & notification given. If the notification is ignored, I'd have no objection with re-deletion of the image. I made a comment to this effect on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --Karnesky (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just thought I'd drop you a note to thank (and congratulate!) you for getting things moving again at the Cite battleground! I was beginning to fear we'd reached a stalemate. All the best, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 04:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Refbase logo.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you removed my addition of FreeOpenSourceSoftware.org and referral to Stallman as the father of open source, but without any note on my talk page or other explanation. If you don't think General Directory is the right category, can you suggest another? Also, the link to FSF should be identified in some way as not really "general" - that site and index are focused on GPL and Stallman's preferences, not that there is anything wrong with that, but I thought at least a note about who sponsored it would be better disclosure. Please let me know your thoughts. Reliablesources 13:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reliablesources (talk • contribs)

Hi, updated the page, put it under "other directories". Reliablesources 00:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reliablesources (talk • contribs)

Please stop putting cucumbers on my hotdog. All four references do NOT include cucumbers. Just as they don't include marshmellows!!! If you order a Chgo hotdog in Chgo and it comes with cucumbers, it is NOT a Chgo Hot Dog. If you have personal experience of ordering a Chgo HD and it came with cucumbers, the clerk that served you was a sabotuer. If the owner of the so-called hot dog stand told his employees to add cucumbers to the finished product, he was committing a sacrilege. If you want a salad, order a salad. Not A Chicago Style Hot Dog. --Buster7 (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not one the references (8) mentions cucumbers.... NOT A SINGLE ONE!--Buster7 (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three do mention it & I noted this in my edit summary. --Karnesky (talk) 07:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read Mike Royko's column about ketchup on a Chgo hot dog...replace the word "Cucumber" when you read "ketchup". Or....Go into Mustard's Last Stand on Central and count the # of cucumbers you get with your hot dog. You may like cucumbers, and more power to ya',.....but please know that what you are eating is NOT a Chicago Hot Dog. Also, I have read the references. I find no mention of cucumbers in any of the recipes listed in any of the references. Please tell me where you are finding this erroneous information.--Buster7 (talk) 07:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since that column does not mention cucumbers, I wonder why you bring it up. You obviously have a personal bias against cucumbers on your dog. I've personally had Chicago-style dogs both with and without sliced cucumbers. While I've had more that do not have them, there are multiple references that mention cucumber slices on dogs, as I mentioned in my edit summary: [4][5][6][7][8]. There seem to be zero that say that a dog is no longer "Chicago-style" if it contains them. Your opinion, alone, does not refute these references. Feel free to find references that disagree with them, though.

But then, I wouldn't consider Mustard's Last Stand as the quintessential hot dog stand. It has a witty name, but it is in Evanston! When I lived in Chicago/Evanston, Demon Dogs was probably my favorite (and they did not have cucumbers). It is a shame that the CTA essentially forced them out.--Karnesky (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about Demon Dogs...they were the best. I wish the owner would open somewhere else. His fries were great too!!! I mentioned Mustard's 'cause I think your talk or History mentioned NorthWestern so I just assummed you knew about Mustard's. This whole hot dog thing is a bit a of a lark for me. I do consider myself a Chgo Hot Dog connoissuer and would not think of adding cucumbers. I read the references and all three barely mention cucumbers as a condiment for the precious wiener. I won't begrudge a fellow chicagoan his cucumbers but I think we need to emphasize that they are rarely ADDED. The are not in the recipe but they can be stapled to the back as an add-on. Anyway,,,nice to meet ya....Have you tried SuperDawg?--Buster7 (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Peace
		I award both you and User:Smith609 this Barnstar of Peace for working together at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Citation bot 4 to iron out the bot's scope and specifications. Differences on bot approval pages too often turn personal. Though you came from different perspectives, you were both courteous, descriptive, and willing to compromise. I strive to follow your example. – Quadell (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought, I should notify you I have nominated OpenCart for deletion.--Jamie Shaw (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the Linux Journal review. Do you have any other ideas where to look for good references? I'll try to expand the article if I get a chance. Papa November (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I declared my position/COI in the AfD for article Kayako, and I don't actually think my position gives me a COI Hatter87 (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions on the article Wizfolio. Made the changes you suggested. Would appreciate if you could have a second look and let me know if it's ok and to remove the speedy deletion tag if everything is ok. Kendric Apple (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. Will look into it. Kendric Apple (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My motivation has always been to help Wikipedia. Joe Chill (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just checking: did you read my note at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Notepad++_(2nd_nomination)? Sorry to address you direct and I do not want to change your opinion in any direction. Cheers! 83.254.210.47 (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that seems WP:POINTy to me. --Karnesky (talk) 12:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right of course. Would WP:IAR override this, for the benefit of Wikipedia... I am not sure myself. The problem is the "mass" nomination and I don't think that the deletionists who have apparently teamed up will pick another prominent article like this again. In the long term a delete can be undone, no permanent harm done. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 12:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Karnesky! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 1,589 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the ((unreferencedBLP)) tag. Here is the article:

1. George D. W. Smith - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editors whose position was soundly rejected at Wikipedia:Software notability are very active at AfDs, and they keep voting according to their own standards, even if the no longer link to that essay. The arbcom decided that such behavior is unimpeachable, so the only way to counter their actions is to counter-vote the delete votes when they are made for invalid reasons. Please add Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion_sorting/Software, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion sorting/Computing, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion_sorting/Internet to your watch list. Pcap ping 15:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of numerical analysis software, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of numerical analysis software. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jwesley₇₈ 22:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you were arguing against the deletion of the NX ideas page. I work for Siemens so cannot start a new NX Ideas page, but am wondering if I could help start a new one and get you and some others to review it. Obviously Siemens PLM Software doesn't sell I-DEAS anymore, but I think it is importnant from a historical perspective to have a document on wikipedia about what it was and where its technology went (into NX). The first job I had at SDRC was demoing I-deas Master Series 3 and before that I used Ideas 6 (no Master Series yet) in grad school. Let me know if you'd like to help and how I should approach it in order to avoid my obvious COI. Thanks in advcnce.Aakelley (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence User talk:Mono. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Note that I routinely watch all AfDs that I participate in. —mono 00:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notified all participants in the AfD that (i) I had made substantive changes to the article that were not commented on and (ii) the debate had been relisted (in part because nobody commented on my changes). Let me know if you have any specific criticism in the way I made these friendly notices that were meant to increase participation in the discussion. --Karnesky (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed that you are the top editor of the article reference management software. I am writing on behalf of my employer, because we would like to create a page for our reference management program, Citavi, which is established in the German market, but is new in English. I have created a draft article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tooki/Citavi (per the WP directions for creating an article when a conflict of interest exists), and would love if you could take a look at it and make changes or comments as necessary. The article is based largely on the German WP article, but shortened. Many thanks in advance. -- tooki (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should get to this eventually, but I currently have a very busy travel schedule. One thing that sticks out is that all references are to the citavi website. Independent sourcing helps articles greatly. --Karnesky (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to take a look despite your full schedule! Fæ made the same observation and gave me some great tips on improving it. We'll work on it some more. Can I then ask you to take a look? (There's no point in having you carefully review it until those changes are made.) Best regards, tooki (talk) 11:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I've added a number of independent sources that I believe meet WP's reliability requirements and establish notability. (Note: I did not remove ref links to the product website, since they were already there, but these are for simple facts, i.e. pure specs and such. If you think it's too many citations, let me know.) As best I can interpret the WP guidelines, I think the article is now in a shape that could be published. Would you kindly take a look? (I have also asked User:Fæ to take a look. See my talk page for his/her comments.) I'm itching to get the article up. Thank you again in advance, and best regards, tooki (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! User:Fæ green-lighted the article draft and moved it to the public userspace. As always, constructive criticism is welcome if you get bored on your travels and have time to take a look. :) Now that the article is up, I'll start adding Citavi to the comparison article. Best regards, tooki (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that you had made some edits and left a detailed comment on the article's draft page. Much obliged! -- tooki (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have been pointed in your direction. I would like to discuss making additions to to your page : Gibbs–Thomson effect .... I use this effect in my daily research, and have written a number of papers about the experiments and their results, some developing the theory and delving into its origins.

You mention a number of equations that are all derived from Gibbs generalised equations, but they have important distinctions, and should be treated separately. I am not familiar with the version of the equation you quote. Can you point me to more information on where it is given ?

I have begun to prepare a short page that could be entitled "Gibbs–Thomson effect" or "Gibbs–Thomson equation", and would like to discuss merging it with your page, cheers, Beau Dr.BeauWebber (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Sorry, my partially written page is at : User:Dr.BeauWebber/Gibbs-Thomson Equation / Effect - Dr.BeauWebber (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid WP:content forks. 2005 was long enough ago that I don't recall the sources I used at the time. The german version of the page pre-dates the english one, so it may have provided inspiration. The equations in the article are commonly used in other treatments, such as Porter & Easterling's "Phase Transformations in Metals and Alloys". --Karnesky (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no GNOME Office suite. Try to get this into your head! The AfD is about whether an article about a list in some other Wiki is notable or not. The list does not make a GNOME Office suite. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I have provided sources. Rather than getting in a two-party argument/revert war, perhaps we should solicit outside comment? --Karnesky (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Comparison of reference management software, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Android (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a RfC on the topic of software notability (whether consensus has changed or if the essay needs updating) at Wikipedia talk:Notability (software)#RfC: On Software Notability.. As you previously discussed on the topic I thought you might be interested. :) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 17:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[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) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:RickettsCrest.svg. 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. --B-bot (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Karnesky. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Karnesky. 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)[reply]

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

software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references, tagged for refs since 2011

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. Dialectric (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparison of file verification software 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/Comparison of file verification software until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Praxidicae (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia without their explicit permission. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about another user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted and/or suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors will result in being blocked from editing. --- Possibly (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]