Talk here :)

I don't know you, but I saw the bit about the old talk page...so I figured I'd drop a talk-page-warming note! Hello! I wish your talk page nothing but goodwill! :D Mike H 23:07, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

I know the chat. In fact, I was there just this afternoon. I just got done with three hours of yardwork so I might be in there a bit later. Mike H 23:56, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Shaun! I found you through Wikipedia: WikiProject Fact and Reference Check. I was wondering if you'd mind lending me a helping hand with International Institute of Management article . On August 10 an unknown person (no signature) marked it for deletion. Then —Ben FrantzDale conducted a good faith google search for “international institute of management” and it did not return a top result. – Which led him to support the deletion marking. Two other users followed saying that the website was not notable and the institute claims non-verifiable international connections. However, I have conducted a detailed research on IIM website, including IIM research section, press-releases, events and photos, as well as other independent websites and provided evidence of notability and verifiable references. However, my concern is that I’m only one vote against 4 vote and I do not know if any of them will change their mind (human nature!). Therefore, I kindly ask you to verify the links provided in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Institute_of_Management and help verify the notability. I’m not asking for anything less than an ethical vote. I’m willing to return the favor and review a similar article.Miro.gal

A vote has been initiated on the standard template for computer and video games. As a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and Video Games, you are being solicited for input into the proposed template. Please cast your vote any make any comments at Rock the vote! Thank you! — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:29, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Anouncing the introduction of The Business and Economics Forum. It is a "place" where those of us with an interest in the business and economics section of Wikipedia can "meet" and discuss issues. Please drop by: the more contributors, the greater its usefulness. If you know of other Wikipedians who might be interested, please send this to them.

mydogategodshat 19:02, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hello. I think you're using too many capital letters in section headings; see my edits to file-sharing programs, and see Wikipedia:Manual of Style for an account of conventions. Also, notice that since we always write, e.g., Smith's theorem with a lower-case t as an article title (probably hundred of Wikipedia articles on eponymous theorems exemplify this convention), and similarly Smith's conjecture, it would seem appropriate to do the same with Collatz conjecture. (A difference is that the possessive form Collatz's conjecture is not being used there. I don't know if any discussion has taken place on whether the lack of the possessive form should in any way affect this convention.) See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style on capitals in article titles. Generally, the first letter of the title automatically gets capitalized by the software, and is case-insensitive (with case-insensitivity you don't need to capitalize an initial letter just because it's a link). The later letters are case-sensitive and generally not capitalized merely because it's an article title (of course, in some cases they're capitalized for other reasons). Michael Hardy 20:23, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, please note the page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (theorems) and it's talk page. This matter has been discussed, as you see there. Please give us your input, so we can continue towards consensus.

Charles Matthews 18:19, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh. About this one: someone has written an article with the singular title file-sharing program, that has been listed in votes for deletion. If that gets deleted, then the one title file-sharing programs should get moved to that title, since (with some exceptions) a plural is not an appropriate article tite. We'll see how that vote goes. Michael Hardy 20:26, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

PS: I see that the user called Mike H has posted some comments here. Lest any confusion arise, please note that I am not that person. Michael Hardy 20:27, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop a note that your List of video game music has been listed at the cleanup page. I've also moved the content on 26 pages, as opposed to your original four, since the content for those four pages exceeded 32K. --[[User:Allyunion|AllyUnion (Talk)]] 08:09, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Can you please describe where you got this data from? These lists have "copyvio" written all over them. Compare the first listing on List of video game music A ".hack// GAME MUSIC Perfect Collection (Limited Edition)" with this page. I found many other matches to various websites, all of which have copyright notices posted. -- Netoholic @ 04:42, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I propose video game music be organized by company, with a "misc" section for smaller companies. This would be much more convenient for someone looking for Final Fantasy soundtracks by looking under "Square-Enix." See Video game music (Capcom) for an example. Once this is done, the alphabetical pages can be done away with.

In this example: Video game music (Treasure) Each game is given a section, and each soundtrack is given a seperate table with room for notes or specific information. The benefit of this method is having only relevant table columns for each soundtrack, instead of one all-encompassing table with many blank cells.

What do you think?

Ihavenolife 00:50, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to contribute, but the tables need to look pretty. Experiment to find out what table/cell size would look best (larger height with smaller width, etc.) Some table examples: Fictional chemical substance Virtues of Ultima Final Fantasy. You could also do a more square table like in page classifications such as Herbology or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and Video Games in order to have both descriptions and cover images. Ihavenolife 18:07, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Data Management Wiki Committee

Thank you for your contribution to one, or more, articles that are now organized under Data management.

Because of your previous intrest, you are recieving an invitation to become a founding member of the Data Management Wiki Committee.

The members, of course, will form and solidify the purpose, rules, officers, etc. but my idea (to kick things off) is to establish a group of us who will take responsiblity to see that the ideas of Data management are promoted and well represented in Wikipedia articles.

If you are willing to join the committee, please go to Category_talk:Data_management and indicate your acceptance of this invitation by placing your three tilde characters in the list.

KeyStroke 01:17, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)

Update:Category_talk:Data_management - what shall be the mission statement, goals, and measures for our project Wikiproject? KeyStroke 19:25, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)

Shaun,

I had an idea for implementing your project. It works with existing mediawiki technology and with my programmer hat on looks upgradeable. See here
 :ChrisG 21:37, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please take a look at Talk:List of video game music. It looks like you were the one who started some of that work, so your input is very much needed. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 15:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hello from Berlin to Canada. I studied in Toronto in 2001/2, and I really liked the people over there. I was especially impressed by how well the multicultural Canadian society works, there is a lot to learn by people here where many still think that immigrants are mainly threats for their jobs, their security, and their culture.

Thank you for taking part in the discussion of the text about that obscure organization. Articles related to pedophelia have been a nuisance for quite a while. When I first encountered the problem I went to a meeting of Berlin wikipedians where I spoke with Kurt Jansson, the head of the German wikimedia organization. He alredy knew about the problem and told me that it was thought that wikipedia was discussed in a pedophile internet forum as a chance to propagate the interests of pedophiles. He even mentioned the problem in an interview with the German newspaper taz as an example of articles that seem to be seriously harmed by agenda driven editors. They inserted lots of links to pedophiles' websites and twisted articles to make believe that it was harmlessness of child abuse was scientifically proven. Information about therapy were frequently deleted, as well as links to victims' organizations. I hope with Kurt Janson that the majority of wikipedians will not allow some sick people to abuse our encyclopedia. Get-back-world-respect 01:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good question. Not that I'm aware of. http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=32&aid=62126 To start one this article by Sree Sreenivasan (a Columbia professor & Poynter Visiting professor) published in Poynter Online may be a good source, if you haven't seen one yet. 172 12:59, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hey, have you given up on factchecking Humphrey IV of Toron? I hope not, I was wondering where it would lead you :) I can give you a bunch of sources to check, if that will help. Adam Bishop 05:44, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That would be good :o). Do you like fact checking now? I haven't been following the discussion about that greek entry, I should go and see. It would be useful to have hidable footnotes for people who want more information. It all depends on how to best implement these footnotes now, I hope the programmers get involved. --ShaunMacPherson 13:49, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't really like it but I don't dislike it enough to argue against it entirely. I don't think any of the existing proposals are workable, and an article like this certainly doesn't need dozens of footnotes. But I will go to the library sometime this week and see if I can find the books that I used. Adam Bishop 18:11, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Very good :). It is good you are doing articles of esoteric (relatively unknown but important) people. Wikipedia has the ability to do very niche knowledge since it can scale so large. Tell me if you find that book.

Programming a workable footnote structure would be hard, but I think it is doable. It would even be more interesting, if wikisource becomes large, to have the footnotes go directly to the the sources. --ShaunMacPherson 19:08, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, here are some sources that I used and others which may be useful:

• Hans E. Mayer, The Crusades, Oxford, 1965.
• Jean Richard, The Crusades, c. 1071-c. 1291, trans. Jean Birrell, Cambridge, 1999.
• Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol. II - The Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Frankish East, 1100-1187, Cambridge, 1952.
• Kenneth Setton, ed., A History of the Crusades (specifically vols. I, II, and V), Madison, 1969-1989 (you can read the whole thing online too).
• Terry Jones and Alan Ereira, Crusades, BBC Books, 1995.
• John L. La Monte, Feudal Monarchy in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1100-1291, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1932.
• M. W. Baldwin, Raymond III of Tripolis and the Fall of Jerusalem (1140-1187), Amsterdam, 1969.
• Charles du Fresne, sieur du Cange, Les Familles d'Outremer, ed. M. E-G. Rey, Paris, 1869 (I think in there he is labelled Humphrey III).

That should be pretty exhaustive. Adam Bishop 21:00, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That is very good, I will look these up. A lot of good books like these can be found on I2P. I enjoy the warnings of 'these titles may not be in the public domain in your particular country or area. Therefore you will have to decide on the morality of adhering to a law that sets up a artificial barrier to the free flow of information called copyright' ;).

I think Wikipedia should have more esoteric works, it is very useful and interesting to have topics that are not in the mainstream but are important. --ShaunMacPherson 21:49, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi again, another book which might be useful, as it seems to mention Humphrey quite a bit, is The Leper King and His Heirs: Baldwin IV and the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, by Bernard Hamilton. Hope this helps :) Adam Bishop 19:34, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I will put this as a fact checking task on our Farc project :). Farc is doing well, we are finalizing our checking template. --ShaunMacPherson 20:57, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You should look into and join the AIW, given your feelings about rampant deletionism. I think it is best to coordinate efforts such as school protection via an organized group. Posiduck 19:38, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is so great to hear about such an organization, especially in light of all the rampant deleting of articles that various mobs don't deem "noteworthy". I had also recently been referred to Xed's CROSSBOW (Committee Regarding Overcoming Serious Systemic Bias On Wikipedia) which was an eye-opener as well. Anyhow its great to know there are people out there that feel that quality, factual articles should all have an equal opportunity to exist. -- RaD Man / talk 21:47, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. I already voted. It would be great to organise a voting block for these things. Mark Richards 00:18, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Shaun. I don't like the fact that we're waiting for features to go live, and I don't think that any wiki project ever got anywhere by waiting around for the developers. I think that footnotes are the best means of referencing at this time, and we should use that for now. That way, we're not breaking any of Wikipedia's standards, and people who use Wikipedia can reap the project's benefits right now. I feel that we should have an article of the week (actually, I prefer an article every 2 weeks, but we can work that out later) that the project members work on. If you don't have any problems with this, then I'll make a poll on the talk page of the project. Thanks. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 22:56, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Excellent :). I've written the poll, it's at User:Frazzydee/Temp. Feel free to edit it. When you think it is ready, please make a note on my talk page, and I'll review and submit it. Thanks. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 23:36, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi there. As someone who has displayed a fairly rational and objective attitude towards micronation articles in the past I thought you might be interested to note that the rabid deletionist lobby is on the march against them again.

The latest target is New Utopia, which although a poorly written article in its current form concerns a subject that is eminently encyclopaedic, being the latest in a long line of libertarian "new country projects" (and therefore representative of a notable social/historic phenomenon), being the subject of dozens of international press and TV stories, as well as the subject of a widely-known US Securities & Investment Commission investigation for fraud.

You might want to take a look at the VfD and respond accordingly.

For future reference you might also want to note the articles in the Micronations Category, in order to keep an eye on its contents; I’ve been adding a number of well-researched, illustrated, fully referenced articles to this category in recent months, but there are moves afoot thanks to a highly suspect ongoing arbitration of process to have me banned completely from writing anything at all about micronations on the basis that as the founder of one, anything at all that I write is somehow self-promotional and/or controversial. --Gene_poole 22:04, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Having recently chatted to the deletionist ringleader I now have a better understanding of the narrow, uncompromising, poisoned thinking and irrational, emotive nature that sustains the deletionist world view - and I have as a consequence decided to commit wholeheartedly to inclusionism, as you suggested. I trust we may successfully beat off any future organised campaigns of deletion against the sort of historically verifiable micronation/secessionist entities that should be documented within Wiki - not to mention the many other topics singled out for the unwelcome attentions of resident self-appointd arbiters of notability. .--Gene_poole 00:31, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good to see your support for historically verifiable topics on Wikipedia, Gene Poole and company. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 22:37, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi there. I noticed that you voted before it had officially started, so I just wanted to remind you to review the proposals again if you want- since it counts now. We didn't get a proposal for the tooltips idea, as suggested on the talk page. While I am not sure of why, I think it's most probably because it isn't default for all users, so only a few people will appreciate it. There is another proposal that allows for multiple references per footnote, but only one footnote per sentence. This will reduce clutter. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 04:57, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hello again, Shaun. I've put up the voting thingy on the FARC (fact and reference check ;), just playing around with some short forms..."WikiProject Fact and Reference Check" is a bit of a mouthful). Feel free to edit it if you can do it before anybody else votes. I decided to make it open to everybody, so that people don't feel afraid to reference our special article even if they're not a member of the project. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 16:27, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yup, that's what proposal 3 is. It has its up-sides and down-sides. On the positive side, it's much simpler, but on the negative side, it may be a bit confusing. How about a proposal 4 where there's one footnote per fact, but you're allowed multiple references per footnote? This may be slightly contraversial, but maybe the voting section should be wiped, and all users who voted should be sent messages about this...my reasoning is that new proposals have been submitted, users voted before it officially began, and one user (Fred Bauder) seems to have voted twice :S. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 18:59, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I definately agree that we need to move ahead. I am just as tired as you must be with this project remaining at a stand-still. However, I still think that we should give people some time to vote. Maybe make the deadline for voting soon- how does the 14^th (1 week) sound to you? -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 04:07, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I had an admittedly stupid idea of not using proper referencing style, and simply linking directly to the article. But this gave me an epiphany...The only reason people hate referencing is because it's so hard to do. Heck, even I found myself referencing incorrectly a few minutes ago, and I left it. It's not because I'm irresponsible, it's because I'm lazy. I believe that it would be incredibly beneficial for us to have a web-based thingy (script? applet?) where all you need to do is type in the URL, name of resource (i.e. "New York Times"), and (optinonally) date modified, and it would automagically fill in the rest, and put everything together. It doesn't sound like it would be too difficult for somebody with experience doing this kind of stuff. Maybe we should contact James Day or Tim Starling and start begging? I'm not sure what you think of this, but don't feel that the footnotes feature request is getting that much support- and I agree with some of their arguments- people will be tempted to put all sorts of stuff there (tables, extra information, etc.), and it'll get messy. So what do you say about this- it'll mainly be used by members of the project, but of course, anybody can use it. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 04:13, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ooh, good idea contacting all the members. I actually shouldn't be up now- it's 11:15 :P. I think Wikipedia is generally trying to move away from subpages (and has mostly done so), so I don't think bringing them back from the dead would be justified just yet. But the ideas/comments section is quickly getting very messy. I would normally give full support for a list of pages that need referencing...but that would make about 99% of Wikipedia articles. Hmm, online reference sources...do you know of any? If so, then please share! I just search stuff on google, but if you know of something that would allow me to access more reputable sources with similar amount of material- that would be wonderful! -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 04:22, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I know for certain that you can write Wikipedia bots in python and in perl. What do you need the bot to do? Thanks for offering to neaten up the page- it looks like it needs it :), might be pretty confusing for a newcomer. Anyhow, please feel free to leave me more messages, but I'm going to sleep now, so you might not get a response until tomorrow :). Good night. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 04:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shaun,

If you run a search on a search engine, you probably could find something on the Top 100 Songs for any year you choose. Billboard currently only has a Hot 100 End of the Year chart for 2003. This End of the Year chart will only be available until the end of December.

BigT27 17:09, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Are we footnoting in APA style? Also, voting ended a long time ago for the proposal and the article of the ???. I guess it's the biweekly special article (I was the only one who voted ;)). It says on Wikipedia:Footnotes: "If the purpose of the footnote is to direct the reader to an outside source, simply put the link to the source in single brackets: [http://promo.net/pg][1]." Are we going to contravene that and cite 'properly', or should we just do that? I see a huge advantage because of the autonumbering. However, I think that we should make them look like footnotes^[2] if we choose to not cite properly. I'm almost done my really crappy auto-referencer...I can give you an alpha testing copy if you want...but be warned- as of now, it sucks- it's very disorganized, and is only partially done. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 01:56, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi there, Shaun. Just wanted to know that I've posted the first biweekly special article. This time, I decided the article myself, but in the future, I hope that we'll have a poll for this. If you want to do some advertising for this, then go ahead :)

I've also suggested that we just use external links for online sources^[3]. My main problem with normal footnotes is that they will not autonumber. I feel that this will end up being a big problem for us, since if we need to add a reference near the beginning, all the footnotes that come after it will have to be manually update it. If we don't do this, then the notes will not be sequential. Also, this conforms with the guidelines set out at Wikipedia:Footnotes, part of Wikipedia's manual of style. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 03:47, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As a fellow inclusionist, can I say - we need guys like you! Don't give up Dan100 22:57, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikicite Stirling Newberry 23:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!Stirling Newberry 22:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is an interesting discussion over on VfD for the bio-article for German demoscene musician and artist paniq. I was hoping you could enter a comment or vote after reading through and reviewing the article. -R

implementation ideas for 1.x distributabe wikipedia. User_talk:dbroadwell -- Dbroadwell 02:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I'm planning on moving distributipedia stuff once i get it do a good name. For now, I put a few reference links in User_talk:Dbroadwell/php. -- Dbroadwell 16:04, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Current code tasks (that don't seem like it, but are in line with distributed stuff) at User:Dbroadwell/php. -- Dbroadwell 14:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As of March 25, 2005, there are an additional (6) articles listed for deletion under the POV notion that schools are non-notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy). Please be aware that the following schools are actively being discussed and voted upon:

• VfD: Blake Junior High School (renominated)
• VfD: Franklin High School
• VfD: Lake Dow Christian Academy
• VfD: Red Lake High School
• VfD: The Sage School
• VfD: Toowoomba Grammar School

In response to this cyclical ordeal, a Schoolwatch programme has been initiated in order to indentify school-related articles which may need improvement and to help foster and encourage continued organic growth. Your comments are welcome and I thank you again for your time. --GRider\^talk

Dear Fact and Reference Check member,

After many months, the biweekly special article has been brought back! The article we will be referencing is Titan (moon). Please do your best to help out!

I'm asking all members to verify at least three facts in the article, and I'd really appreciate it if you could try and help with this. We have about 19 members, so if even 3/4 of us try and fulfil this 'dream', that'll be 45 references!

If you need some information on how to use footnotes, take a look at Wikipedia:Footnote3, which has a method of autonumbering footnotes. Unfortunately, they produce brackets around the footnotes, but it seems to be our best alternative until they integrate the footnote feature request code into MediaWiki. You may be interested in voting for the aforementioned feature request.

Cheers,

Frazzydee|✍ 20:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, please continue to inform me of issues I am interested in (with regards to voting, or others). If for some reason deletionists go above and beyond 'normal' methods to try and block you, let me know and I will assist as best I can to coordinate the preservation of valuable information from being destroyed on the VfD. --ShaunMacPherson 02:48, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Shaun and thank you for comments and willingness to help. It appears that as of late I have become an easy target for personal attacks and indefensible double standards. When nominating articles for deletion which consist of insignificant trivia about a make believe world that receives less than 100 google hits I was accused of disturbing the community for making too many nominations. Upon the realization that the Wikipedia Google Test was in fact a fallacy I listed it for deletion and was accused of attempting to make a point. When removing unfounded and libellous personal attacks made against me, more threats were made, as if they matter. This is just further evidence of systemic bias on Wikipedia, evidence of what will happen if you try to improve articles on notable, real-world institutions and demonstrate the strong bias towards science fiction and fantasy related material here. Never mind that others, such as Radiant, have done the same exact things with impunity. He has removed personal attacks by other editors made against him, made personal attacks against me, nominated articles in personal user space, and nominated a long long list of articles to be deleted with a low success rate without being brought to RfC. The only real difference is that his nominations are rarely science-fiction or fantasy-related. It all seems very strange, doesn't it? There is no cabal. --GRider\^talk 00:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's great to hear from you again :) I'm really happy with how the biweekly special article for Titan worked out, I think we did great on it, especially for our first try. For some reason, enthusiasm for the BSA seems to have waned since the first one. Maybe I should spam all the members again ;)

Maybe alphabetically would be a good idea- I agree that people shouldn't feel less important just because they joined later. I think that current practice for WikiProjects is to do it by the date they joined, but we can always set a new precedent :D

Thanks for leaving me a message! Don't be a stranger, feel free to drop me a line anytime :-) If you have a few minutes to spare, feel free to help with the latest Biweekly Special Article. As you already know, every referenced fact helps immensely! -Frazzydee|✍ 22:44, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Originally posted to Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article

Pederasty is one of the most intelligently thought out and articulated articles I have read anywhere, and the fact that it is so given a potentially controversial topic is even more remarkable. If there is a nomination process I nominate this article for featured article :). --ShaunMacPherson 04:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• To be listed as a main page featured article, it first has to navigate featured article candidacy. I only skimmed it, but this article looks like it may have FAS potential, why not drop by and nominate it? – ClockworkSoul 05:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whoah. damn straight (pardon the pun), but THAT is an awesome article. ..and probably quite timely in today's "society". I will second the nomination, even though by most accounts I'm a Charlitain and a Christian Fundamentalist. (BTW, I've done some work on The Wikipedia:WikiProject_Community, which is what I came in here to tell ya. Later Shaun Quinobi 01:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good evening. I am working through the backlog of VfD decisions and trying to get some of them closed. In the process, I found several articles where you removed the VfD header saying for example "Been on VfD for a month, removed the notice as cleanup." Please do not remove the VfD header unless you are formally closing the discussion. When users take the initiative to remove the header, it can really throw off the workflow of the admin who later tries to close out the discussion. Whenever I find a missing header, I must immediately assume the worst and scrutinize every vote and history file for evidence of bad faith actions. (Sadly, history has proven that people try to abuse the process that way on a regular basis.) On some articles, the extra steps and reviews can be incredibly time-consuming - time that I don't have when we are so badly backlogged with old VfD decisions.

If you would like to help close out some of the VfD decision discussions, please review Wikipedia:Deletion process and its accompanying Talk page. We could use the help. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 07:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is good advice, the two to three I removed seem to have been done improperly as few, if any, people had voted in a month. I had voted myself one one which had one vote but noticed it was a month old.

If there is a backlog that seems to mean that there is too much VfD happening. Perhaps a system where two or more nominations are needed to put something up on VfD, and once something has been on VfD it cannot be resubmitted for a period of 3 months.

I'll take a look at your links to know the VfD system better, thanks for the info. --ShaunMacPherson 09:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi!

Thanks for the kind comments on the William-Adolphe Bouguereau Gallery Talk Page. I've been working on the page pretty much every weekend for a few months, adding a few new pictures each time. Your idea of doing the same thing for other artists sounds absolutely great :-)

--81.86.224.226 21:54, 6 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Giving bureaucratic status in Michael's case would only compound the issue of viewpoint domination, not help.

Hello. I have to say, I am puzzled by this comment. Why would it compound that issue? Michael Hardy 01:02, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there! To avoid making duplicates, it may be useful to run a google search over Wikipedia (go to google, type in this: "mega man zero" site:enwikipedia.org). Etc. There are several janitorial cleanup projects, but to my knowledge none that hunt and merge duplicate content. You might want to ask around on WP:DP, though. HTH! Radiant_>|< 13:14, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

• I'm afraid a cat of redirs won't work as it's far too large to be useful. Special:Allpages lists a lot of them, of course. Radiant_>|< 13:39, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Whoever created the pool planned to close it after Wikipedia reached 600,000 articles. Can you find who this is by studying the pool's history?? Georgia guy 00:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I seem to have counted incorrectly. Not sure how, but I did. Still, of the 18 votes cast, 11 opposed the existence of an independent article (voting either delete or merge). I will be adding a 'disputed merge' tag to the article, with a note on the talk page. Cheers, Ingoolemo ^talk 05:17, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

can you take a look at Wikipedia "apartheid"? There is a movement to delete a two-word inclusion that is fact and true. It's gotten to the point that everyone is focused on the disputing editors and not the edit itself.

" Deletionists are disputing the following statement: "South Africa was settled initially by the Dutch, Germans and French from the 17th century onwards. English, other European settlers, and Diaspora Jews followed in the 19th century." This statement is true, and it therefore should not be deleted.69.217.125.53 15:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apartheid

Thanks!

I was also spammed with this, it is not an inclusionist/deletionist issue, it's an edit war. — PhilHibbs | talk 08:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your message at User talk:Georgia guy: Umm, yes there is a 1,000,000 pool. It even predates the 666,666 pool. It closed on March 17 2005 when Wikipedia reached 500,000 articles. See Wikipedia:Million pool. — JIP | Talk 4 July 2005 06:49 (UTC)

I think that's a very good idea that is worth exploring further, though a troll editor's talk page is probably not the best place to do it... -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My origional quote:

Wikipedia cannot be held hostage by trolls, and the solution is simple. Block the IP address but have an automated message when people from this address try to edit saying:

Other users of this IP address have been engaged in vandalism of Wikipedia articles. You can:

• Ask your ISP to investigate this abuse
• Register with Wikipedia under a username, which fast and free, to make edits. Click top right to register.

As you can see in the User_talk:62.254.64.14 the troll was scared off and did a 'cease fire' because of my comments. As well, I submit that it was the best place to put this discussion as the troll and all other users of that IP address being abused have a right to be informed as to what we are doing. Anything else is elitist and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. --ShaunMacPherson 01:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which particular part of my brief statement is elitist? Could you enlighten me please? -- Francs2000 | Talk 17:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not informing the users of the IP address as to our plans, "a troll editor's talk page is probably not the best place to do it", is elitist unless you have a reason (one that was not articulated as yet) why they, the users of that IP adddress including the Troll, should not be informed as to plans and suggestions to curb abuse. --ShaunMacPherson 23:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I don't know what you were referring to then, but I was referring to a policy to create a generic template that could be put on these talk pages to explain why they've been blocked, and what they can do about it. I thought that was what you were referring to in your original message. -- Francs2000 | Talk 09:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would be a good policy too, I was hoping for an automatic script that would explain it to them when they try to press the edit buttion but I believe one may already exist since I did some checking into it :). I believe the problem currently though is if the IP address is banned, it doesn't matter if they register via a login name they still cannot seem to edit. --ShaunMacPherson 10:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes that's why these IP's are only blocked for a short period of time. -- Francs2000 | Talk 10:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well then that is the point, perhaps should be changed. I'd advocate for some sort of hash cash type solution (when first registering) for people who choose to login over banned IP addresses. I'm not really a fan of hash cash (because I hate the idea of 'wasting' computer cycles) but it seems it would be effective in this instance.

As well, incase the point isn't clear instead of telling me where I "should" be discussing my ideas on this issue, which I did not appreciate, you can suggest to me that the idea is good (or bad) and recommend then a place where the idea could be more widely received. Thanks. --ShaunMacPherson 03:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:J heisenberg/A list of economics terms not in Wikipedia is a list of economics topics, but it is fairly small, there is also the requested articles section, but I would love to find an economics dictionary/encyclopedia and do what we're doing over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, which i assume would be more like that list of law topics you used as an example. If you know of an online economics dictionary or anywhere that we could generate a list from then that would be great. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 15:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:J heisenberg/A list of economics terms not in Wikipedia is a list of economics topics, but it is fairly small, there is also the requested articles section, but I would love to find an economics dictionary/encyclopedia and do what we're doing over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, which i assume would be more like that list of law topics you used as an example. If you know of an online economics dictionary or anywhere that we could generate a list from then that would be great. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 15:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello!

I liked all the pictures you uploaded, very nice work. Don't let the copyright bull crap scare you from uploading more, just make sure that you document everything and if you're using it as fair use then put that there. If we don't make use of our fair use rights then they will be wither (or be taken) away. --ShaunMacPherson 23:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I apologise for I am not sure I I had to answer to you here or in my discussion page, I'm confident that I will be able to write in the appropriate space as time as a wikipedian passes.

In any case I wanted to make sure that I was uploading the images correctly. I read the docs, and I always put the appropriate copyright template (as it seems), when I do not take the screenshot myself I put the source. Just wanted to make sure that it's all right, and also I wanted to ask you if there is something else that I need to know as an almost newbye (only 250 contribution).

Suggestions, anything is welcome.

Federico Pistono 10:24, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

Don't worry, I find if I talk to someone I may forget I did so unless they reply in my user page, so what I do if it's important is I reply in theirs and copy their responses from mine. A lot of people just reply in one place but then they have to keep track.

I'm probably going to be uploading some images again as well because I'm motivated by your example now :). There are a lot of public domain sources out there, especially of paintings that are now in the public domain itself. One good thing that many painter/artist articles need is a list article / list gallery / 'gallery' of their work like William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery. There are a lot of pictures on wikicommons too that could be used to make other galleries.

Bye for now, --ShaunMacPherson 13:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"I'm probably going to be uploading some images again as well because I'm motivated by your example now :)"

Well, that is nice to read, I feel somehow useful now... :-D

The two examples that you gave me are very nice indeed, for now I only concentrated mya ttention to anime images, but I would like to make my own once I buy a decent digital camera, then I will for sure distribute them under the GFDL, what do you think is the best one? GFDL, CC2, other? I don't like the PD though, it sounds so anomymous.

Federico Pistono 13:33, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

That is a very interesting question, hmmmmm. You could double license them under the GNU FDL and the CC2, plus if you go into photography as a job you'll still have the copyrights and other people will have to give you credit. You would also be able to sell the copyrights if someone likes one of your images and want to use them in a private publication. The GFDL / CC2 could be like Free advertising for you since they still must give credit to the author.

I might also take pictures since that is a good idea, I'm not sure what kind of pictures that would be good to take though. Wikipedia needs pictures of anything I guess :-). --ShaunMacPherson 17:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, that is indeed correct, but I find that the naturalistic images are the most quoted, most of the "Picture of the day" are dragonflies... LOL

In any case I think you should specilise in those topics where you have to most knowledge. For instance, if you happen ho travel in Africa a lot, then you would be taking good pictures there, whether if you are a electronic engineer you would know which part of a circuit to take and what they corrispond better than a philosophy techer, if you see what I mean.

I don't really know myself which kind of images I will take though. Mhh..... let's see, why don't we keep in contact and show each others our creation, then the inspiration will come along I guess. :-D

Federico Pistono 20:18, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

That is true, taking pictures of what you know could work. Plus a lot of articles are missing pictures of everyday things like cups, TVs, shavers, windows etc.

Another good idea is to make images with graphics editors, like graphs, drawings etc. One woman who just became an administrator did a series of excellent drawings and scanned them.

We defantly should keep in contact and tell eachother about new pictures. I'm going to take some pictures of some local buildings here that have wikipedia articles about them. Also every day things like cups and pencils if they also don't have a picture.

The only trouble for me is getting the energy get off my butt and do it :). --ShaunMacPherson 20:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is a good idea indeed. Do you think it's better to use a vectorial drawing program? I find myself quite comfortable with Sodipodi, and the GIMP for editing. It is true that wikipedia still lacks of everyday life's pictures, so I believe it would be valuable even the smallest or the simplest thing. In the end all the credits we have is "glory" and respect of the others, but that is what the whole wiki idea is aboout, isn't it? ^_^

I find myself to spend quite a lot of time in this project, I think it is giving me quite a lot of satisfacions, I see friends reading my articles and so on, it pays be the work you do and the effort that you put in these things. The only regret is that up to now I don;t have many contacts in the community, just how did you find out about me and the pictures I was uploading, which page did redirect you to me?

Federico Pistono 21:56, 2005 August 24 (UTC)

I made a wikimedia account where I uploaded some of my drawings with the doublee license. Check it out if you want:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pain

Federico Pistono 20:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw yout comment on the TV Tome talk page, and I had a question regarding copyrights and "standard" layouts. Could you have a look at it ? Thanks. Lvr 10:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting idea having discussions based on each person!

I haven't been around much since I had lots of work to do :). I looked at your drawings and they are very very good. What I like to do to practice is edit art I find to play around since I do not have the ability to create things from scratch. Lot's of artists hate when people do that (and release the art as well) but if I was an artist I don't think I would mind, just like how I don't mind people editing articles I created on Wikipedia :).

How did you make these, do you draw them by hand then scan them? When I try to make art I use a mouse and a paint program but i find it isn't as accurate since you have less control with a mouse compared to a pencil/pen/etc.

Did you do any photography yet? I have to do some, maybe I am just waiting until I see your pictures to motivate me into doing something hehe. --ShaunMacPherson 17:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I find that to be very nice and clean, it keeps everything organised.

I made the drawings just with a soft pencil and an eraser, it's called "gomma pane" in italian, literally "bread gum". And then yes, I scanned them, and yes again, if you wish to modify them with a program I don't mind, I put the license clearmfor that, though. ^_^

Unfortunately I did not do any photography yet, I am still looking for a good camera. I do not know if I should try eBay, where I found good prices for a 5M Pixel (around 130€). Do you think Canon is a good choice? Or maybe Nikon (without reflex, though, that would be too expensive for my wallet...)

Federico Pistono 17:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Wikimedia Commons (Click here to go there) I believe is a more appropriate place for what you mentioned hence the first line on the AfD ballot. --SuperDude 19:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you bothered to read the deletion discussion then you'd realize that the commons cannot make use of fair use screen shots. Thus if these images and the articles are deleted then are gone for good. --ShaunMacPherson 19:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, Shaun! Unfortunately, though I did put a good deal of effort into several of the galleries, I think the VfD brings up a number of good points, and I think I have to agree that they're not really appropriate for Wikipedia in their current form. I think they should probably be worked into other articles, where we can make a stronger case for fair use. Sorry.... – Seancdaug 21:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by 'make a stronger case for fair use', or why that article is generally up for deletion. Screenshots are generally fair use and I see little talk about it not being fair use to have a gallery of screen shots for video games.--ShaunMacPherson 22:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The thing that concerns me is that a simple gallery of images doesn't really seem to qualify as fair use. It would be better to have them in a more explicitly illustrative capacity (with prose description of the evolution of the graphics for each system, or whatever). – Seancdaug 22:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use is vague and if we are going to protect our fair use rights that we (currently) have then we cannot cower but must push for them. Read what you're voting against - there is a list of galleries for video games but it ends with the phrase "and other similar galleries". Do you want to have the precedent that galleries like William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery be deleted also? They seem to be valuable and I'd vote to keep them and renominate the article under copyvio if you're worried about the fair use implications. --ShaunMacPherson 22:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All of the Bouguereau images are in the public domain, so the fair use question does not apply in that case, although I do feel that there are probably better ways to utilize the images. I did notice the "other similar galleries" comment, and was about to make a comment on it, but I don't think it changes my underlying reasoning. Even if there wasn't the question of copyvio hanging over everything (and, for the gallery articles, I do personally feel that we're over "the bare minimum necessary to serve its point on Wikipedia"), the simple fact remains that this sort of article is explicitly forbidden by Wikipedia guidelines ("Wikipedia articles are not... collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles"). The images themselves certainly are valuable (I uploaded a good chunk of them, after all, and I wouldn't have done so if I didn't think they had some worth), but the way in which they are currently presented is inappropriate. I'm not voting for the deletion of the images (which wouldn't be handled at VfD, anyway), and I'm more than willing to help work with anyone who wants to rethink the current presentation and develop something a little more encyclopedic. – Seancdaug 04:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps we can move the images to each an article entitled something to the effect of 'Graphics of the Nintendo, SuperNintendo, SagaGenesis, ..., etc. system. I see nothing wrong with including screen shots in such an article. At some point we can split off the article which has the examples into it's own subarticle - it will look like a gallery article but just won't be called. --ShaunMacPherson 03:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I looked at the history for the gallery articles and I appear nowhere: I'm not certain why you thought I would be interested. You do understand that it is not the images themselves which are up for deletion, but simply the gallery articles which are displaying them in a manner not appropriate for fair use? —Phil | Talk 07:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I direct you to the current debate over copyright and ask you to give your arguement as to why you think that a collection of images that are a fraction of the entire work (one screen shot out of an entire video game, each) is not justifed under the copyright act of 1976.

My arguements as to why it is fair use are given, I look forward to your counteraguements if my words did not convince you that this should be fine.--ShaunMacPherson 18:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm trying to determine the particular positions of inclusionists, so I'd appreciate it if you'd characterize specifically the extent and particulars of your inclusionism. Thanks! Kurt Weber 21:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm always willing to change my positions depending on arguements presented so they are not concerete but I'll give my general viewpoints as of this point:

• I am for the deleting of advertising, especially for closed source software. An article on a piece of software that no one uses or cannot use is just advertising. If it's open source though anyone can use it and it can usually be used in other projects so I think a lower threshold for open source software should exist.
• If it's verifable then I am generally for including it. The problem with 'not notible' pages isn't that they are 'not notible' but that the there is no way for the claims to be verified independently.
• I am also very much worried that systematic censorship can occur since it's so easy to nominate something with an army of sock puppets and then have it removed without much notice. Articles that have existed beyond a certain period should not be as easily nominated for vfd - articles that have had many editors contribute to it should not be as easily nominated either - articles that have survived vfds should not be renominated for a period of 6 months. If anyone agrees perhaps we can make it so it's official policy after working out the details. --ShaunMacPherson 22:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Shaun,

thanks for your kind words about the CC-BY-NC article. If you have any ideas how to improve it further, please leave a note on the talk page of the wiki version. All best, --Eloquence* 05:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I feel terrible for not seeing this until now, but thank you so much for the barnstar that you awarded me. To be honest, I've barely had any time at all for Wikipedia over the past few months, since I've been focusing more on school (I'm in my last year before university). I'm going to try and start editing more, as my schedule permits, but the workload this year has been fairly heavy thus far.

Again, thank you so much for the barnstar that you so kindly awarded me. I just hope that I can live up to all the wonderful things you've said about me; I will certainly try my best, but I must also prioritize to ensure that my marks do not suffer.

Yours truly,
Frazzydee|✍ 03:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem at all lol! I find my Wikipedia usage has been going down as well, just because so many other people are taking up the slack that things that were on my to-do list are getting done so I can sit back and watch it all happen :).

Its good the FARC project is going along well, Wikipedia is becoming big enough that the factuality component, instead of completeness and coverage, is becoming important.

Bye for now, --ShaunMacPherson 11:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, it's me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pain/ShaunMacPherson). I did not buy a decent camera yet, but instead I tried to create something useful on other branches, like the Spoken Wikipedia for example. I was not sure about it becuase I was afraid that my accent would not be acceptable, but so far I received quite positive feebacks, so I think I'll keep improving.

I enjoy ver much the spoken article idea, and I'm experimenting a lot with Audacity, really a great tool. If you whish check this out: Solid Snake, i'll put the links at the right side here.

Listen to this page (3 minutes)

This audio file was created from a revision of this page dated 9 October 2005 (2005-10-09), and does not reflect subsequent edits.

(Audio help · More spoken articles)

Bye, and remember to keep me informed of your projects as we promised each-other. Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 07:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm the Wikipedian who began the Association of antiexclusionist Wikipedians and left a message on your meta-page. Aparently, there's a new group trying to censor Wikipedia called the Association of "Moral" Wikipedians. I highly recomend your subgroup try and stop them or you join my associaiton.

Canadianism 06:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryville Middle School appears in danger of being trumped by a conspicuous and concerted effort on the part of deletionists. Please review the nomination and vote at your convenience.--Nicodemus75 06:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You debated whether Côte d'Ivoire should be referred to by its English language name before. A request has been made to move the page to that location. You might wish to cast a vote at Talk:Côte d'Ivoire. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Shaun, I see you are the original author of this article. I have been defending it (perhaps unreasonably) against what I feel is a PVO edit. Could you keep an eye on it, and perhaps put your view on the talk page as I feel I shouldn't revert it any further - having done so three times now. Thanks AntiVan 04:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw your comment on Wikipedians against censorship and I was very distrought of how you think an image of someone performing autofellatio on themselves is acceptable for an encyclopedia. Could you please tell me some justification for putting them on the internet? I have never seen them in other encyclopedias so this comes as a surprise. I do not mean to be offensive, just want to carry out an educated conversation of sorts. Best regards. Эйрон Кинни 03:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I counter by suggesting the onus is on you to indicate why you think autofellatio should not be included in an encyclopedia. Peoples' uptightness, or whatever reason why people do not want this topic covered, should not be an impediment to the full documentation of human knowledge. --ShaunMacPherson 07:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have commented on the deletion of image galleries in the past. The William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery has been nominated for deletion, in accordance with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The deletion discussion is here. A proposal to modify the policy is here. Please join either or both discussions and comment as you see fit. Dsmdgold 16:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like list articles are useful and visual list articles (galleries) are also. Thanks for informing me abotu this issue. --ShaunMacPherson 07:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Helloo.. Saw your free speech thing and thought you might be interested in this template (which is also linked from the WikiProject talk page: ((User:Feureau/UserBox/freespeech))

A link so you can preview it: ((User:Feureau/UserBox/freespeech))

Hope you like, it's pretty much the same but will also automatically add you to the Wikipedians against censorship category. :) --Mistress Selina Kyle 17:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Shaun, I'm messaging you because I see that you are in Wikipedia:WikiProject Community, and so might have interest and expertise to lend to this small project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Fast OrgDev Advisory on Userpages, which will write an advisory document in support of the new Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes. Herostratus 06:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I, Shell, Welcome you to join UDUIW. If you are interested, include yourself in our category and/or add our userbox. Thank you, Shell. (Shell 03:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC))

An article that you created has been nominated for deletion. Feel free to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antiforbidden fruit effect. Joyous | Talk 23:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Believe.ogg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use ((GFDL)) to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as ((Non-free fair use in|article name)) or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as ((db-unksource)).

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo.

A watered-down version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you knidly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 10:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I found you through Wikipedia: WikiProject Fact and Reference Check.

I was wondering if you'd mind lending a helping hand over at the fan fiction article. I've been working on it for a while now, and it seems that perhaps the only way to improve it at the moment is to get proper cites and good sources for everything (since almost nothing is cited). :) The worst problems we have at the moment are probably with the "Legal issues" section, but I've sprinkled ^{[citation needed]} throughout that section, mentioned why I put ^{[citation needed]} where I did on the article's Talk page, and asked several members of WikiProject Law to take a look at it, so if you can help with that section and are willing to, then great! But if you can't, or don't feel up to it, that's fine. Any help on any part of the article (as well as citing sources/refs on one of its key companion articles, Mary Sue) would be much appreciated! :) Let me know if you're interested in helping out, or of course, feel free to edit on your own if you don't want to bother with that first. Runa27 23:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will take a look and help out. A lot of improvements have been made in the formatting of citations I see - I was one of the first people to try and create a formatting mechanism :). --ShaunMacPherson 08:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because you're a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, I'm notifying you that the inclusionist proposa Wikipedia:Non-notabilityl is in progress to define the role of notability in articles. Please help us make this successful! Also note the proposal Wikipedia:Importance is a deletionist proposla that seeks to officially introduce notabiltiy for the first time. Make sure this is defeated! --Ephilei 22:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help From fellow Wikipedians against censorship!

Thank you for your time I was wondering if i could ask your opinion?? :)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. Edward Griffin here is the Article on G. Edward Griffin that I have just reconstructed and am still in the process of doing, But it's been put up for deletion?.

I was wondering if you could pitch in a comment in any direction you feel but I believe this man is very notable having Authored such books as The Creature from Jekyll Island a history of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, but also many many more films as well, also being a member of many organisations.

Me being an inclusionist of sorts I would rather see changes made rather than a wholesale deletion, what do you think?

The man is very notable he has been doing this sort of work since the 60’s when he created the “The Capitalist Conspiracy” one of the first and most documented histories of Political Corruption in film that I know of.

Thank you for all your help, I’m just starting out in Wikipedia I have created the Benjamin H. Freedman, article and reconstructed the The Money Masters article and some others but I need help here! Any help of mine you may need or want in any regard in the future just ask :)

Also any contribution you would like to make to improve the article please consider!

Really i wouldn't ask if i did not really think this article worthy.

-Theblackbay 10:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

.theblackBay. beta site

Hi! As a contributor to WikiProject Energy development, I thought you might like to be aware of the opportunity to contribute to the new Energy Portal, now that there is one... No need to reply. Gralo 17:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw your message on Avoid copyright paranoia ([4]) and would like for you to take a look at fair use discussion at image:Rebecca Cummings.jpg Thanks!--HeartThrobs 20:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Over the past couple of months I've been spending much more time than I should developing the Energy portal, and intend asking for a portal peer review within the next day or so.

The portal provides a showcase for energy-related articles on Wikipedia. One of the most prominent ways is via a the selected article that is currently changed every 6 weeks or so. It would be good to increase this turnover, and with three Wikiprojects dedicated to energy-related topics and a good number of articles already written, I'd like to suggest that members of each Wikiproject might like to use the 'selected article' to feature some of their best work.

With this in mind, I'd like to suggest that your Wikiproject bypasses the normal selected article nomination page and decides collectively which articles are worth featuring - or these may be self-evident from previous discussions - and add short 'introduction' to the selected article at the appropriate place on page Portal:Energy/Selected article/Drafts, which includes further information. Your personal involvement would be welcome!

Please make any comments on your Wikiproject talk page, my talk page, or on Portal talk:Energy/Selected article/Drafts, as appropriate. Gralo 15:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are listed as a participant in WikiProject Energy development, so I am asking you to please consider helping to improve the plug-in hybrid article. This is an ad hoc article improvement drive. BenB4 08:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, ShaunMacPherson. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Threepointsymbol digitalindustry.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:ShaunMacPherson. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 09:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article AI effect, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((dated prod)) notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Oo7565 (talk) 06:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want to inform you that I have nominated Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Template/ for Miscellany for Deletion. I have left the rationale here. Please discuss if you can. MuZemike (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on AxCrypt, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because AxCrypt is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting AxCrypt, 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) 12:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated AxCrypt, 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/AxCrypt. 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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Order (sort), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

WP:NOT#DICT, unlikely search term. The main article would be Sorting. The few incoming links have been fixed.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((dated prod)) notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:ShaunMacPherson/sandbox/, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ShaunMacPherson/sandbox/ and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:ShaunMacPherson/sandbox/ 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. Miami33139 (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello ShaunMacPherson! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is 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 1,894 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the ((unreferencedBLP)) tag. Here is the article:

1. Alan Hood - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.

I intend to revise those articles following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

A six year old unsourced stub with no reasonable claim of notability.

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so this fails the general notability guideline

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 ((proposed deletion/dated)) 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 ((proposed deletion/dated)) 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. MrOllie (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article WinHoldEm is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WinHoldEm until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. andy (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Erotic Actor has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. WOSlinker (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings ShaunMacPherson-

My name is Randall Livingstone, and I am a doctoral student at the University of Oregon, studying digital media and online community. I am posting to invite you to participate in my research study exploring the work of Wikipedia editors who are members of WikiProject: Countering Systemic Bias. The online survey should take 20 to 25 minutes to complete and can be found here:

https://oregon.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cSHzuwaQovaZ6ss

Your responses will help online communication researchers like me to better understand the collaborations, challenges, and purposeful work of Wikipedia editors like you. In addition, at the end of the survey you will have the opportunity to express your interest in a follow-up online interview with the researcher.

This research project has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Research Committee as well as the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon. For a detailed description of the project, please visit its Meta page. This survey is voluntary, and your confidentiality will be protected. You will have the choice of using your Wikipedia User Name during the research or creating a unique pseudonym. You may skip any question you choose, and you may withdraw at any time. By completing the survey, you are providing consent to participate in the research.

If you have any questions about the study, please contact me via my Talk Page (UOJComm) or via email. My faculty advisor is Dr. Ryan Light. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Randall Livingstone School of Journalism & Communication University of Oregon UOJComm (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Article does not attribute any sources. I could not locate any reliable sources to establish notability. (WP:V, WP:N)

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 ((proposed deletion/dated)) 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 ((proposed deletion/dated)) 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. Marasmusine (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of music artists by recording studio 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/List of music artists by recording studio until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Secret ^account 05:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Invading.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nestopia 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/Nestopia until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article ANts P2P has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Absent a few more reviews like the one cited in Slycknews, I don't see how it's possible for the article to pass WP:NSOFT. There's just not enough written about it in WP:RS.

While all constructive 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 ((proposed deletion/dated)) 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 ((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. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ANts P2P 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/ANts P2P until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article PCSX2 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/PCSX2 until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. TTN (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Falcom Special Box '90 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Infrastructure for Resilient Internet Systems has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

One-time research project that ran from 2002 to about 2005; never became notable

While all constructive 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 ((proposed deletion/dated)) 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 ((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.

The article Telemarketing in Canada has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article is mostly unsourced original research and reads like a how-to guide.

While all constructive 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 ((proposed deletion/dated)) 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 ((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. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This hasn't hit the mainstream yet, but today is an important day for WP:VG. We've reached our 10 year anniversary! The WP:VG Newsletter crew are interested in running a feature this quarter on the early days of WP:VG and because you are one of the earliest contributors to the WikiProject, we need your help. In the last 10 years a lot has changed and we'd love to hear your perspective on it. One of the biggest changes may be your level of participation in the WikiProject or even in Wikipedia generally. This is why I'm contacting you almost 2 months before the newsletter is due to come out (it's due on April 2). I'm hoping that you'll have time somewhere between now and then to answer a few general questions reflecting on WP:VG and Wikipedia in general. Please contact me here if you would be willing to answer a few questions for our anniversary article. If you can participate, please mark this beside your name on the list, and if you can't participate please also mark this on the list by deleting your name or overstriking it. I hope this will be a fun and interesting quarter for the WP:VG Newsletter! Thanks in advance. -Thibbs (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• PS - If you'd prefer, I could also contact you by email. Let me know if that would be more convenient for you. -Thibbs (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2014 (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) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Video System 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/Video System until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. czar 05:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List SNES. Since you had some involvement with the List SNES redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Infoanarchism 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/Infoanarchism until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. czar 04:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Digital Imprimatur 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/The Digital Imprimatur until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Perrythwi (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rewind (England novel) 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/Rewind (England novel) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fire Emblem The Best Volume 1. Since you had some involvement with the Fire Emblem The Best Volume 1 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect RIAA afiliated music artists. Since you had some involvement with the RIAA afiliated music artists redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Reyk _YO! 18:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG.

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. TTN (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Video System. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 14#Video System until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 07:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Yan Can Cook has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Entirely unsourced (only citation up until this point was IMDb).

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. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]