This is an archive of past discussions in the 2010s. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 January 6#Sound of sloshing water in home heating system. — Lowellian
You seem to know how to find ratings. Do you know how I can find ratings for the five episodes of Million Dollar Challenge (poker)?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 07:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
You know, there was really no need to move it. It was lower-cased because the topic discussed was not any particular legal corporation - none of the Medici branches was named just 'the Medici Bank' so far as I know - but rather a motly collection of shifting entities over the decades/centuries. So one can speak of the Medici bank but not the Medici Bank, if you follow me. eg. see the hits in Google books http://books.google.com/books?q=medici+bank&btnG=Search+Books . -- Gwern (contribs) 20:24 13 January 2010 (GMT)
Thank you for being patient with me. I hope this is a good compromise : ). Tim1357 ( talk) 03:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 23:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Since you have contributed greatly to the article, I am letting you know that I have received WP:GAC feedback at Talk:Victoria's Secret Fashion Show/GA1. Feel free to get involved in the discussion.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 05:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I replied here. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for helping this article attain and retain its WP:GA status.
This user helped promote Victoria's Secret Fashion Show to good article status. |
-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 21:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the singular vs. plural point you made on Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, you'll notice in Elliot's Debates that the plural is used for Virginia's Resolutions. Each paragraph is a "resolution"—this is especially clear in the subtitle of the Kentucky Resolutions. Furthermore, in the first sentence of an address that accompanied the Virginia resolutions, the majority specifically refers to "resolutions" (see s:Virginia Resolutions of 1798/Address), as do the states who respond ( Delaware, Rhode Island, etc.). There's also a book called " Kentucky Resolutions of 1798", and an 1899 scholarly article refers to the "Virginia Resolutions" at the bottom of page 51. If you don't mind, I'd like to make the WP article consistent with this standard. -- Spangineer ws (háblame) 23:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
I am letting you know that an article you have been involved in editing, Terese Nielsen, has been nominated for deletion as part of a series of AFDs based on the deletion nomination of List of Magic: The Gathering artists. If there is anything you can do to improve the article further, your efforts would be appreciated. 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 22:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
A user has criticised you at Talk:Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships#Requested move. A bot has copied his first post to Wikipedia:Requested moves/current#June 25, 2010 which is transcluded at Wikipedia:Requested moves. PrimeHunter ( talk) 01:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, now that The Cape is a disambig page, could you help fix the links that need re-pointing per WP:FIXDABLINKS? Thanks, The Cape
— Preceding unsigned comment added by JaGa ( talk • contribs) 06:30, 18 September 2010
Please if you have time and you know anything to it (I have seen that you have made edits in the article area which owns relations on it --- You have made the article Batman Knightfall) , please look on the article Audio theatre, somebody placed a erase discussion on it. after we have had a merge discussion. It would be interesting what you would say to the merge and the delete discussion. )-: -- Soenke Rahn ( talk) 02:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lowellian. Back in May, you reverted a change in the title of this article. However, your revert was against the consensus on the talk page. Would you mind undoing your revert, without the caps in the new title ("Law of unintended consequences"), since administrator action is now required to do this. Otherwise, please discuss the matter on the talk page. Thanks. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 00:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Category:YouTube video producers, which you created back in 2007, has been nominated by another editor for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 15:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The article Thom Merrilin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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.
Sadads (
talk)
22:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
If you disagree so passionately, then please come to the talk page and discuss it. I initially put up a template warning because I didn't realize that you were a seasoned editor (the "This user is an Administrator alerted me to it when I was saving the message). As a season editor, and an administrator, I would expect that you would be aware of when WP:BRD should be put into place. I understand why you keep reverting, but since there is clearly a disagreement I would ask that you simply bring it up on the talk page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Lowellian,
Thanks for your attention on the Anthony Weiner item. However, I strongly disagree with your position--PROD status does not impact whether something is speediable or not. I restored the history and temporarily protected the redirect per a discussion on my talk page, and I wish you had contacted me before undoing my admin actions. -- jonny- m t 00:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi please follow WP:brd and move to discussion, thanks Off2riorob ( talk) 13:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I have reactivated this after some discussion on collaborative editing on wikipedia. My idea is to give it a few months and see if it works out. If not, so be it, but might generate more discussion. I note you were interested many moons ago..Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gya 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/Gya 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. Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 13:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Lowellian/Archive 2010s! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click
HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
About your moving of The Firm from its year disambiguation, your own moves demonstrated exactly what disambiguating by year is to avoid. Fights over "U.S. TV series" or "Canadian TV series". Set in the US and based on the work of an American novelist. Actually made in Canada with many Canadian cast members and made by Canadian companies (E1, Shaw) with token involvement from the US companies (Paramount) who own the rights to the original work. Commissioned by American company (Sony) for their channel in ROW. Massive American media with 'billions of sources' that inherently call nigh everything American. Microscopic Canadian media that often label domestic productions as originals of the US broadcaster who bought the rights simply because that is what everything they read said it is. Queer As Folk, Being Human, Skins, and a couple of others have had big issue with this. I personally have been told to concede to such things as Montreal not being in Canada and that volume of sources trumps accuracy of source. Each one of those shows is made in Canada for Canadian television and might have some involvement from a US production company or not and might have a US cast member or not but they are all set in the US. The show Falcon Beach even had alternate takes edited in any time a location was mentioned so that American viewers on ABC Family were sheltered from the show's Canadian origin in obscure Winnipeg. Due to that some insisted the show is American. To avoid fights with too many people i have come to disambiguate such shows by year because that is less egregious than having a Canadian show labelled as American simply because it was on a US channel for 6 weeks in its first season. And in the case of The Firm the American broadcaster was the last one to come to the party and they got a cheap price for it because it is generally really embarrassing to set a show in the US and end up without a US broadcaster for it. That is why the mini-series The Kennedys ended up on reelzchannel and the Canadian première in March of last year was cancelled in favour of the US premiere in April. To get a show sold to a US broadcaster Shaw will be very flexible. Once a US broadcaster has been secured Shaw doesn't bind themselves to whatever the US broadcaster does, unlike some other Canadian broadcasters. That ep of Combat Hospital that was unaired in the US but which was shown in Canada. Keeping The Firm on Thursdays on Global and repeating on Fridays and Saturdays on Showcase when NBC moves it to Saturdays. Showing NCIS a day ahead of CBS due to time slot conflict with glee Tuesdays at 8pm. I don't know how much you follow Canadian television but going with a national disambiguation opens a pretty hostile 'can of worms' for a show like The Firm. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 14:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you moved Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth. The usual practice with articles that started with British English variations is to leave them in that form. In Britain, the so-called Oxford comma or serial comma is not commonly used. I don't really care one way or another, but I thought you might have seen it as a mistake rather than a legitimate alternative. Will Beback talk 04:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
hey
-- Kilhert40 ( talk) 21:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I notice you moved The Firm (2012 TV series) to The Firm (U.S. TV series) then to The Firm (Canadian TV series). Why did you do that? I don't want to have the article take a side; I'd rather have it 2012. 68.44.179.54 ( talk) 00:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I have been swayed by User:Deliriousandlost's arguments over on Talk:The Firm (2012 TV series) / Talk:The Firm (Canadian TV series) that there are fundamental problems with the disambiguation naming convention at WP:TV-NAME. Therefore, at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television), I have proposed a change to the naming convention which would indeed make disambiguation policy officially support The Firm being located at the "The Firm (2012 TV series)" instead of at "The Firm (Canadian TV series)". Your input would be appreciated there. — Lowellian ( reply) 22:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MediaWiki version history 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/MediaWiki version history 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 template from the top of the article. Axem Titanium ( talk) 05:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Monkey (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/Monkey (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 template from the top of the article. Bonkers The Clown ( talk) 09:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
FYI [1]. I'll do a little more in it later to add more references. I think it's worth keeping. Homunculus ( duihua) 22:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing Talk:Disappearance of Kyron Horman. I must have accidentally hit "add signature" or something while I was editing and didn't catch the mistake. Thanks again. :)
Matt ( talk) 05:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
On 7 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Carl Wolfgang Benjamin Goldschmidt, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a minimal surface of revolution can be visualized as soap film stretched between two circular wires, and C. W. B. Goldschmidt discovered mathematical solutions describing cases in which the film breaks? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Carl Wolfgang Benjamin Goldschmidt. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 00:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
On 7 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Minimal surface of revolution, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a minimal surface of revolution can be visualized as soap film stretched between two circular wires, and C. W. B. Goldschmidt discovered mathematical solutions describing cases in which the film breaks? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 00:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I see you are the primary editor to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an MMORPG. I left a comment in the Talk page expressing how totally amused I was at that article. It's got to be one of the greatest articles in Wikipedia! Seriously, well done. I am thoroughly impressed. :D • Jesse V. (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Columbine High School massacre is a widely used name for the event, as established via reliable sources. Conversely, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is merely our description (and as discussed on the talk page, it probably won't even remain the article's title in the long term), not a de facto name. I strongly disagree that "The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a school shooting" reads well. — David Levy 03:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, this is just a heads up that I've used your contributions as an example to demonstrate an old bug mentioned in Wikipedia's documentation about moving a page over a redirect. Hope you don't mind ... if you do, I can find somebody else to use as an example; I just chose you because your early edits show the effect of the bug quite clearly. I might update that section later if I find any more documentation of the bug, but it's way past my bedtime now! Graham 87 16:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi - I just visited the page of Can: Monster Movie. The LP cover it the cover of the reissue (Liberty Records)! At release time only 500 ex. of Monster Movie were pressed - the coverart is entirely different. Those original pressings are extremly rare - I own one of them. I could supply the original cover of the LP - which I consider the correct one ;-)
Best regards Ueli Frey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uelifrey ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Well... happy editing... :-) it's my first try at it! Not really sucessful! I don't get rid of some letters showing up around the picture. Please check! I hope I did not mess up the page.
Furthermore I was not sure how to 'declare' the copyright situation of a photo taken from an LP cover (on wikicommons).
Best regards
Ueli Frey
Uelifrey (
talk)
22:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I just wanted to make you aware of this discussion I started at Winter storm naming. I have no intentions of making any changes to the article myself, but was just hoping to get input from editors previously involved in the article (or recently-closed AfD) in an effort to improve the article and clarify its purpose. I will leave any changes to the consensus of other editors who decide what's best. Your participation would be welcome, regardless of your views on the issue. Thank you. 76.189.111.199 ( talk) 22:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the administrative help and move. Everyone seems pretty happy with this title. As a note this article was not done to evade a block. The article was created before the block and after discussion and agreement. The purpose was to rename and move the article. Then the old page was locked down (over unrelated edit warring). It doesn't really matter now, but I thought you should know given your brief comment. Capitalismojo ( talk) 05:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article M'Kraan Crystal 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/M'Kraan Crystal 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) 19:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tel'aran'rhiod 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/Tel'aran'rhiod 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) 01:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chinese school 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/Chinese school 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. JohnBlackburne words deeds 02:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Firoozbakht’s conjecture. Since you had some involvement with the Firoozbakht’s conjecture redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Compfreak7 ( talk) 07:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
On 23 May 2014, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article May 2014 Ürümqi attack, which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. |
-- Spencer T♦ C 20:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Template:MinorEdit has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Meteor sandwich yum ( talk • contribs) 04:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect China (historical region). Since you had some involvement with the China (historical region) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The ChampionMan 1234 03:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- John ( talk) 22:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 4, Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 5, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263#Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive848#Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 full protection. — Lowellian
On 22 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Common (film), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that reviewers found the BBC One film Common "unrelentingly depressing" and "profoundly engaging"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Common (film). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the conspiracy theorist post on the Ebola article. I ran an online search of the user's name. It turns out that he or someone with the same username runs or is otherwise involved in a number of conspiracy theorist websites, and claims to be suing the government for damages relating to a "mind control program." I would recommend observing his account for any other unconstructive edits or the possibility that he may try to revert your removal of his content. -- Delta1989 ( talk) ( contributions) 09:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Two Steps From Hell. Since you had some involvement with the Two Steps From Hell redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Safiel ( talk) 07:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
RfD says at the top "about a week". Why did you close it in a day? Si Trew ( talk) 11:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Consider it a pigeon pie! Oh, wait no, don't want you to choke haha! Great job on ASOAIF page! Sarahnals ( talk) 17:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC) |
Hello,
I have searched in vain for the good path to get administrator’s help for the following issue and so I decided to send this request to some including you.
I have considerably expanded the article Guerrilla filmmaking and took care in referencing it as far as I could (over 90 links to trustful sources). I am an experienced editor of Wikipedia. For my surprise, the article was reverted by user CIRT to a preceding stub version mainly consisting of a very narrow list of films. Many important contents were removed. Self promotional vandalism seems to be the reason of such intervention, sustained by acute threats. I do not intend to respond with helpless and inconsequent arguments and the time I have to dedicate to Wikipedia is quite limited.
I’d be happy if you could pay some attention to this occurrence and let you decide whatever you think is reasonable.
My best,
Tertulius ( User talk:Tertulius) 06,48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Cloutier was (somewhat strangely) closed as a delete with 5 delete and 4 keep responses and recreated through the WP:AFC process you contested a speedy deletion. Thus, I call your attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Cloutier (2nd nomination).-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
Seasons greetings. Way back in 2004 you had created an article heading Legality but since most of lead content in the article was about Principle of legality it was redirected by another user to Principle of legality. Yesterday I studied and worked a little on Legality. Since word Legality has wider scope it would be wise to redirect the article from Principle of legality to its former position Legality . I have created enough lead info for the article related to legality on the talk page which can be incorporated and then present lead about Principle of legality can be a section in the article.
I will prefer you support in redirect the article from Principle of legality to its former position Legality so that history of the article can be retained properly. You may refer further details on Talk:Principle_of_legality
Thanks and regards
Mahitgar ( talk) 03:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
As you deleted the page 'a while back' - would you be able to find a link to a past version for [2]? Jackiespeel ( talk) 10:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
What was the reasoning behind restoring the revisions prior the AFD? Was it requested?-- Yankees10 21:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I hope you will visit Talk:Imprint (trade name) and summarize the changes. Did you work on two articles? Or an article and a redirect with two substantial talk pages and page histories? What does it mean in terms of Imprint (disambiguation)?
The history shows [3] "assess for WP:WikiProject Business" as edit summary for replacement of the content by a redirect. And shows that the page (except in name?) is the same as I left it in December. I doubt that I know how to read a merged history. Did the intervening editor rename, in effect, rather than delete the content?
-- P64 ( talk) 21:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm curious why you changed the name of Marvel Puzzle Quest to Marvel PQ. I've never heard it referred to that way. I always see it referred to as Marvel Puzzle Quest - on the Marvel website, on the publisher's website, on iTunes, Twitter, etc. Even if you Google search "Marvel PQ", everything that comes up says "Marvel Puzzle Quest". Nowhere do I see it referred to as Marvel PQ, aside from on the cover of the game, but that just seems to be for purposes of style. I mean, the logo for Nine Inch Nails is NIN, but that doesn't mean the Wikipedia page should be named NIN. Is there something I'm missing here?-- Bernie44 ( talk) 03:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
On 21 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gribshunden, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a sea monster figurehead has been recovered from the wreckage of Gribshunden, a 15th-century Danish warship? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gribshunden. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 01:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
08:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Lowellian, I am Qi Wu, a computer science MS student at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are working on a project studying the main article and sub article relationship in a purpose of better serving the Wikipedia article structure. It would be appreciated if you could take 4-5 minutes to finish the survey questions. Thanks in advance! We will not collect any of your personally information.
Thank you for your time to participate this survey. Your response is important for us!
https://umn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bvm2A1lvzYfJN9H
Here is the link to our Meta:Research page. Feel free to sign up if you want to know the results! https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Main/sub-article_relationship
Wuqi333444 ( talk) 05:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Lowellian—in addition to your post here could you weigh in further? Your post is being discussed further. Thanks. Bus stop ( talk) 09:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rush (video gaming) 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/Rush (video gaming) 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.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisencolin ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Lowellian. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Please review
the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators'
mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Lowellian.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Lowellian. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Since you have made at least 10 edits to Victoria's Secret Fashion Show, I thought you might want to comment on whether the accompanying templates should be kept.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
A quick heads up here before you go summarily reverting edits in progress at the Super Bowl XLIX: do not make summary reverts, and do not make reverts w/o cause.
You have done both. I am an experienced editor with some 40,000 Wikpedia edits to date. Thank you. 24.61.220.85 ( talk) 00:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I redirected Pac-Man Arrangement after discussing the nomination with another editor, not because it "was not going my way". Plus, redirecting hardly equates deletion. It leaves the window open for an article return if someone feels significant improvements can be made, as opposed to eliminating the page outright. Thanks. sixtynine • speak up • 05:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
redirecting it is essentially the same as deletion"—this is extremely irresponsible for an admin to say. It's totally within an editor's rights to redirect an article, per BRD, as it is another editor's rights to contest it. The article has been unsourced for a full decade. It is unfathomable to call it independently notable without providing any sourcing to back that position. I would also expect an admin to know that AfD is for deletion arguments only—if there is no rationale for deletion, it becomes a talk page merge discussion. czar 17:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.
13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence for the assertions in your edit summary? None of the decent sources at the bottom of the article mention its subject, and web-searches suggested the only actual mentions are in the listed web-forums. -- JBL ( talk) 14:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, everybody, could you please stop debating this chess piece on my user talk page and take the discussion to your own user talk pages, to the talk page of the relevant articles, or to the AFD discussion? Thank you. — Lowellian ( reply) 00:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much for cleaning up my responses on the proposed deletion conversation re an article I started to create about Delia Antal. I really try very hard to be a contributor of value to Wiki but I do have a lot to learn (especially with this kind of thing because I haven't dealt with it yet). I'm wondering if you can help shed a bit of light on this issue I'm dealing with - I saw a film called D'Ora and was impressed by the film and its star/writer - who did something quite brave with this film. I found enough links to support the article; and when it got questioned by Biruitorul - I went back and deleted the ones he pointed out as questionable; and just started adding new ones. I'm wondering if there's anything else I should be doing. Again, my goal is to always be a welcomed contributor! Thanks for any response you can give me. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akrumoftruth ( talk • contribs) 01:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Underdark 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/Underdark (2nd nomination) 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) 19:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
You undid my edit after I merged commerce.
There is duplicated content in trade since I copied and pasted content.
Please do not undo, it damages wikipedia.
Thank you
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorpzn ( talk • contribs) 04:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Don’t pages without discussing them first as you did with 2017 NCAA Men’s Division I Basketball Corruption Scandal. All page moves should be discussed and agreed upon on the article’s talk page. MitchellLunger ( talk) 00:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Lowellian. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Please see my last response at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Local_accounts_attached_without_a_visit_(and_welcomed_without_an_edit). — xaosflux Talk 22:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
There is an RfC at an article you have edited, to which you may wish to add your input: Talk:American Flagg!#Request for comment. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 17:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Starlabs 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/Starlabs 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jamie Allman. Since you had some involvement with the Jamie Allman redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. John123521 ( Talk- Contib.) 08:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
In any discussion on Wikipedia, we use the markup reserved to lists as a proxy for discussion and threading. WP:LISTGAP absolutely applies in this case, because it is about the wikitext, not about your understanding or intention about the wikitext.
Please revert your change and please don't introduce changes like that anywhere else in the future for talk pages. LISTGAP already provides the reasons why you should not. -- Izno ( talk) 14:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
<dl><dd><a href="/wiki/User:Izno" title="User:Izno">User:Izno</a>: The style I use of a blank line around paragraphs is common in discussion pages. <a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:LISTGAP" class="mw-redirect" title="Wikipedia:LISTGAP">WP:LISTGAP</a> is not relevant, as it is a guideline specifically for lists, not indented discussions: "Do not separate list items by leaving empty lines or tabular column breaks between them. This includes items in a description list (a list made with a leading semicolon or colon) or an unordered list. Lists are meant to group elements that belong together, but MediaWiki will interpret the blank line as the end of one list and start a new one. Excessive double line breaks also disrupt screen readers, which will announce multiple lists when only one was intended, and therefore may mislead or confuse users of these programs."</dd></dl>
<dl><dd>That is a guideline that applies to lists, and its intention is to not botch formatting of lists, which is why it is not relevant here: the discussion isn't a list. Unlike the case with lists, with indented discussions, the extra line doesn't change how the discussion is rendered in Wikipedia's resultant display. I find it much easier to edit the source when I can easily see where each of my paragraphs end and where someone else's comment ends and my comment begins. You yourself used a blank line between your two paragraphs in the comment you just posted here on this user talk page.</dd></dl>
<dl><dd>I don't go around wholesale changing others' comments; please respect the same for me. When I posted my comment <a class="external autonumber" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29&diff=855329782&oldid=855310047">[1]</a>, notice that I did <i>not</i> insert a space between your comment and TheDJ's. I put spaces around the paragraphs of <i>my own</i> comments, which had spaces around them when I originally posted those comments; it had nothing to do with you. I get that the border between comments from two users is "shared" between both users, so if you want to remove the blank line between your own comment and mine on that Village Pump discussion, go ahead: since we share that border, I won't object, and you can have the borders of your comments there, even those shared with me, in the style you prefer. But please don't wholescale edit all my comments that you weren't even sharing a border with. Thank you.</dd></dl>
<dl><dd>—<a href="/wiki/User:Lowellian" title="User:Lowellian">Lowellian</a> (<a class="mw-selflink selflink">reply</a>) 15:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
<dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd>First paragraph</dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl>
<dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd>Second paragraph</dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl>
<dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd>Third paragraph</dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl>
::::
:::: First paragraph
::::
:::: Second paragraph
::::
:::: Third paragraph
<dl><dd>First paragraph</dd>
<dd></dd>
<dd>Second paragraph</dd>
<dd></dd>
<dd>Third paragraph</dd></dl>
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Easy Transfer, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Legacypac ( talk) 20:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello Lowellian,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Insects as food for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, entomophagy..
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
TheLongTone ( talk) 14:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Insects as food 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/Insects as food until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spinning Spark 22:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Insects as food 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/Insects as food (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 14:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Lowellian. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi! can you please check out this Florian Munteanu case. I've seen plenty of pages here on Wikipedia with actors who played a single role in a movie. I don't understand why some people complain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4F8:1C17:404A:0:0:0:1 ( talk) 14:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey, just for clarification, as I don't honestly know, but if that's the case, then why do all the previous year's drafts have it this way? For instance, all the teams in the 2018 NFL Draft direct to their 2018 season, as do the teams on the 2017, 2016, 2015, etc. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 19:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Lowellian...I started the page with the correct syntax, then lost my mind while trying to trim my wordiness. Nice of you to take the time to correct it.-- Bonnielou2013 ( talk) 21:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Lowellian,
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Xevus11 and it's nice to meet you :-)
I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Cancerverse should be deleted. Your comments are welcome over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cancerverse .
You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Xevus11}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
. Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Xevus11 ( talk) 02:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Administrators
must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
The article Transnationality has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Article lacks citations. Its is a broader perspective stating a concept. Don't know the purpose of its existence.
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.
!dea4u
11:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Legends of Tomorrow eps. Since you had some involvement with the Legends of Tomorrow eps redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Gonnym ( talk) 17:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
There’s a discussion at Talk:Foreign relations of China#It’s time to split the article at 1991 which may be of interest. ch ( talk)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sancia. Since you had some involvement with the Sancia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 02:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
-- User:Martin Urbanec ( talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
The article Jann of the Jungle has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Fails 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)
21:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jann of the Jungle 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/Jann of the Jungle until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN ( talk) 22:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ho Yinsen 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/Ho Yinsen until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Onel5969 TT me 21:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The article Moon-beast has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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.
Urhixidur (
talk)
15:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions in the 2010s. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 January 6#Sound of sloshing water in home heating system. — Lowellian
You seem to know how to find ratings. Do you know how I can find ratings for the five episodes of Million Dollar Challenge (poker)?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 07:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
You know, there was really no need to move it. It was lower-cased because the topic discussed was not any particular legal corporation - none of the Medici branches was named just 'the Medici Bank' so far as I know - but rather a motly collection of shifting entities over the decades/centuries. So one can speak of the Medici bank but not the Medici Bank, if you follow me. eg. see the hits in Google books http://books.google.com/books?q=medici+bank&btnG=Search+Books . -- Gwern (contribs) 20:24 13 January 2010 (GMT)
Thank you for being patient with me. I hope this is a good compromise : ). Tim1357 ( talk) 03:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 23:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Since you have contributed greatly to the article, I am letting you know that I have received WP:GAC feedback at Talk:Victoria's Secret Fashion Show/GA1. Feel free to get involved in the discussion.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 05:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I replied here. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for helping this article attain and retain its WP:GA status.
This user helped promote Victoria's Secret Fashion Show to good article status. |
-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 21:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the singular vs. plural point you made on Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, you'll notice in Elliot's Debates that the plural is used for Virginia's Resolutions. Each paragraph is a "resolution"—this is especially clear in the subtitle of the Kentucky Resolutions. Furthermore, in the first sentence of an address that accompanied the Virginia resolutions, the majority specifically refers to "resolutions" (see s:Virginia Resolutions of 1798/Address), as do the states who respond ( Delaware, Rhode Island, etc.). There's also a book called " Kentucky Resolutions of 1798", and an 1899 scholarly article refers to the "Virginia Resolutions" at the bottom of page 51. If you don't mind, I'd like to make the WP article consistent with this standard. -- Spangineer ws (háblame) 23:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
I am letting you know that an article you have been involved in editing, Terese Nielsen, has been nominated for deletion as part of a series of AFDs based on the deletion nomination of List of Magic: The Gathering artists. If there is anything you can do to improve the article further, your efforts would be appreciated. 204.153.84.10 ( talk) 22:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
A user has criticised you at Talk:Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships#Requested move. A bot has copied his first post to Wikipedia:Requested moves/current#June 25, 2010 which is transcluded at Wikipedia:Requested moves. PrimeHunter ( talk) 01:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, now that The Cape is a disambig page, could you help fix the links that need re-pointing per WP:FIXDABLINKS? Thanks, The Cape
— Preceding unsigned comment added by JaGa ( talk • contribs) 06:30, 18 September 2010
Please if you have time and you know anything to it (I have seen that you have made edits in the article area which owns relations on it --- You have made the article Batman Knightfall) , please look on the article Audio theatre, somebody placed a erase discussion on it. after we have had a merge discussion. It would be interesting what you would say to the merge and the delete discussion. )-: -- Soenke Rahn ( talk) 02:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lowellian. Back in May, you reverted a change in the title of this article. However, your revert was against the consensus on the talk page. Would you mind undoing your revert, without the caps in the new title ("Law of unintended consequences"), since administrator action is now required to do this. Otherwise, please discuss the matter on the talk page. Thanks. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 00:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Category:YouTube video producers, which you created back in 2007, has been nominated by another editor for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 15:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The article Thom Merrilin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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.
Sadads (
talk)
22:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
If you disagree so passionately, then please come to the talk page and discuss it. I initially put up a template warning because I didn't realize that you were a seasoned editor (the "This user is an Administrator alerted me to it when I was saving the message). As a season editor, and an administrator, I would expect that you would be aware of when WP:BRD should be put into place. I understand why you keep reverting, but since there is clearly a disagreement I would ask that you simply bring it up on the talk page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Lowellian,
Thanks for your attention on the Anthony Weiner item. However, I strongly disagree with your position--PROD status does not impact whether something is speediable or not. I restored the history and temporarily protected the redirect per a discussion on my talk page, and I wish you had contacted me before undoing my admin actions. -- jonny- m t 00:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi please follow WP:brd and move to discussion, thanks Off2riorob ( talk) 13:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I have reactivated this after some discussion on collaborative editing on wikipedia. My idea is to give it a few months and see if it works out. If not, so be it, but might generate more discussion. I note you were interested many moons ago..Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gya 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/Gya 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. Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 13:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Lowellian/Archive 2010s! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click
HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
About your moving of The Firm from its year disambiguation, your own moves demonstrated exactly what disambiguating by year is to avoid. Fights over "U.S. TV series" or "Canadian TV series". Set in the US and based on the work of an American novelist. Actually made in Canada with many Canadian cast members and made by Canadian companies (E1, Shaw) with token involvement from the US companies (Paramount) who own the rights to the original work. Commissioned by American company (Sony) for their channel in ROW. Massive American media with 'billions of sources' that inherently call nigh everything American. Microscopic Canadian media that often label domestic productions as originals of the US broadcaster who bought the rights simply because that is what everything they read said it is. Queer As Folk, Being Human, Skins, and a couple of others have had big issue with this. I personally have been told to concede to such things as Montreal not being in Canada and that volume of sources trumps accuracy of source. Each one of those shows is made in Canada for Canadian television and might have some involvement from a US production company or not and might have a US cast member or not but they are all set in the US. The show Falcon Beach even had alternate takes edited in any time a location was mentioned so that American viewers on ABC Family were sheltered from the show's Canadian origin in obscure Winnipeg. Due to that some insisted the show is American. To avoid fights with too many people i have come to disambiguate such shows by year because that is less egregious than having a Canadian show labelled as American simply because it was on a US channel for 6 weeks in its first season. And in the case of The Firm the American broadcaster was the last one to come to the party and they got a cheap price for it because it is generally really embarrassing to set a show in the US and end up without a US broadcaster for it. That is why the mini-series The Kennedys ended up on reelzchannel and the Canadian première in March of last year was cancelled in favour of the US premiere in April. To get a show sold to a US broadcaster Shaw will be very flexible. Once a US broadcaster has been secured Shaw doesn't bind themselves to whatever the US broadcaster does, unlike some other Canadian broadcasters. That ep of Combat Hospital that was unaired in the US but which was shown in Canada. Keeping The Firm on Thursdays on Global and repeating on Fridays and Saturdays on Showcase when NBC moves it to Saturdays. Showing NCIS a day ahead of CBS due to time slot conflict with glee Tuesdays at 8pm. I don't know how much you follow Canadian television but going with a national disambiguation opens a pretty hostile 'can of worms' for a show like The Firm. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 14:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you moved Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth. The usual practice with articles that started with British English variations is to leave them in that form. In Britain, the so-called Oxford comma or serial comma is not commonly used. I don't really care one way or another, but I thought you might have seen it as a mistake rather than a legitimate alternative. Will Beback talk 04:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
hey
-- Kilhert40 ( talk) 21:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I notice you moved The Firm (2012 TV series) to The Firm (U.S. TV series) then to The Firm (Canadian TV series). Why did you do that? I don't want to have the article take a side; I'd rather have it 2012. 68.44.179.54 ( talk) 00:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I have been swayed by User:Deliriousandlost's arguments over on Talk:The Firm (2012 TV series) / Talk:The Firm (Canadian TV series) that there are fundamental problems with the disambiguation naming convention at WP:TV-NAME. Therefore, at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television), I have proposed a change to the naming convention which would indeed make disambiguation policy officially support The Firm being located at the "The Firm (2012 TV series)" instead of at "The Firm (Canadian TV series)". Your input would be appreciated there. — Lowellian ( reply) 22:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MediaWiki version history 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/MediaWiki version history 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 template from the top of the article. Axem Titanium ( talk) 05:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Monkey (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/Monkey (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 template from the top of the article. Bonkers The Clown ( talk) 09:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
FYI [1]. I'll do a little more in it later to add more references. I think it's worth keeping. Homunculus ( duihua) 22:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing Talk:Disappearance of Kyron Horman. I must have accidentally hit "add signature" or something while I was editing and didn't catch the mistake. Thanks again. :)
Matt ( talk) 05:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
On 7 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Carl Wolfgang Benjamin Goldschmidt, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a minimal surface of revolution can be visualized as soap film stretched between two circular wires, and C. W. B. Goldschmidt discovered mathematical solutions describing cases in which the film breaks? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Carl Wolfgang Benjamin Goldschmidt. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 00:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
On 7 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Minimal surface of revolution, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a minimal surface of revolution can be visualized as soap film stretched between two circular wires, and C. W. B. Goldschmidt discovered mathematical solutions describing cases in which the film breaks? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 00:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I see you are the primary editor to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an MMORPG. I left a comment in the Talk page expressing how totally amused I was at that article. It's got to be one of the greatest articles in Wikipedia! Seriously, well done. I am thoroughly impressed. :D • Jesse V. (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Columbine High School massacre is a widely used name for the event, as established via reliable sources. Conversely, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is merely our description (and as discussed on the talk page, it probably won't even remain the article's title in the long term), not a de facto name. I strongly disagree that "The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a school shooting" reads well. — David Levy 03:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, this is just a heads up that I've used your contributions as an example to demonstrate an old bug mentioned in Wikipedia's documentation about moving a page over a redirect. Hope you don't mind ... if you do, I can find somebody else to use as an example; I just chose you because your early edits show the effect of the bug quite clearly. I might update that section later if I find any more documentation of the bug, but it's way past my bedtime now! Graham 87 16:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi - I just visited the page of Can: Monster Movie. The LP cover it the cover of the reissue (Liberty Records)! At release time only 500 ex. of Monster Movie were pressed - the coverart is entirely different. Those original pressings are extremly rare - I own one of them. I could supply the original cover of the LP - which I consider the correct one ;-)
Best regards Ueli Frey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uelifrey ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Well... happy editing... :-) it's my first try at it! Not really sucessful! I don't get rid of some letters showing up around the picture. Please check! I hope I did not mess up the page.
Furthermore I was not sure how to 'declare' the copyright situation of a photo taken from an LP cover (on wikicommons).
Best regards
Ueli Frey
Uelifrey (
talk)
22:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I just wanted to make you aware of this discussion I started at Winter storm naming. I have no intentions of making any changes to the article myself, but was just hoping to get input from editors previously involved in the article (or recently-closed AfD) in an effort to improve the article and clarify its purpose. I will leave any changes to the consensus of other editors who decide what's best. Your participation would be welcome, regardless of your views on the issue. Thank you. 76.189.111.199 ( talk) 22:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the administrative help and move. Everyone seems pretty happy with this title. As a note this article was not done to evade a block. The article was created before the block and after discussion and agreement. The purpose was to rename and move the article. Then the old page was locked down (over unrelated edit warring). It doesn't really matter now, but I thought you should know given your brief comment. Capitalismojo ( talk) 05:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article M'Kraan Crystal 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/M'Kraan Crystal 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) 19:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tel'aran'rhiod 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/Tel'aran'rhiod 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) 01:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chinese school 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/Chinese school 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. JohnBlackburne words deeds 02:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Firoozbakht’s conjecture. Since you had some involvement with the Firoozbakht’s conjecture redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Compfreak7 ( talk) 07:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
On 23 May 2014, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article May 2014 Ürümqi attack, which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. |
-- Spencer T♦ C 20:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Template:MinorEdit has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Meteor sandwich yum ( talk • contribs) 04:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect China (historical region). Since you had some involvement with the China (historical region) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The ChampionMan 1234 03:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- John ( talk) 22:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 4, Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 5, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263#Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive848#Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 full protection. — Lowellian
On 22 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Common (film), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that reviewers found the BBC One film Common "unrelentingly depressing" and "profoundly engaging"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Common (film). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the conspiracy theorist post on the Ebola article. I ran an online search of the user's name. It turns out that he or someone with the same username runs or is otherwise involved in a number of conspiracy theorist websites, and claims to be suing the government for damages relating to a "mind control program." I would recommend observing his account for any other unconstructive edits or the possibility that he may try to revert your removal of his content. -- Delta1989 ( talk) ( contributions) 09:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Two Steps From Hell. Since you had some involvement with the Two Steps From Hell redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Safiel ( talk) 07:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
RfD says at the top "about a week". Why did you close it in a day? Si Trew ( talk) 11:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Consider it a pigeon pie! Oh, wait no, don't want you to choke haha! Great job on ASOAIF page! Sarahnals ( talk) 17:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC) |
Hello,
I have searched in vain for the good path to get administrator’s help for the following issue and so I decided to send this request to some including you.
I have considerably expanded the article Guerrilla filmmaking and took care in referencing it as far as I could (over 90 links to trustful sources). I am an experienced editor of Wikipedia. For my surprise, the article was reverted by user CIRT to a preceding stub version mainly consisting of a very narrow list of films. Many important contents were removed. Self promotional vandalism seems to be the reason of such intervention, sustained by acute threats. I do not intend to respond with helpless and inconsequent arguments and the time I have to dedicate to Wikipedia is quite limited.
I’d be happy if you could pay some attention to this occurrence and let you decide whatever you think is reasonable.
My best,
Tertulius ( User talk:Tertulius) 06,48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Cloutier was (somewhat strangely) closed as a delete with 5 delete and 4 keep responses and recreated through the WP:AFC process you contested a speedy deletion. Thus, I call your attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Cloutier (2nd nomination).-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
Seasons greetings. Way back in 2004 you had created an article heading Legality but since most of lead content in the article was about Principle of legality it was redirected by another user to Principle of legality. Yesterday I studied and worked a little on Legality. Since word Legality has wider scope it would be wise to redirect the article from Principle of legality to its former position Legality . I have created enough lead info for the article related to legality on the talk page which can be incorporated and then present lead about Principle of legality can be a section in the article.
I will prefer you support in redirect the article from Principle of legality to its former position Legality so that history of the article can be retained properly. You may refer further details on Talk:Principle_of_legality
Thanks and regards
Mahitgar ( talk) 03:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
As you deleted the page 'a while back' - would you be able to find a link to a past version for [2]? Jackiespeel ( talk) 10:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
What was the reasoning behind restoring the revisions prior the AFD? Was it requested?-- Yankees10 21:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I hope you will visit Talk:Imprint (trade name) and summarize the changes. Did you work on two articles? Or an article and a redirect with two substantial talk pages and page histories? What does it mean in terms of Imprint (disambiguation)?
The history shows [3] "assess for WP:WikiProject Business" as edit summary for replacement of the content by a redirect. And shows that the page (except in name?) is the same as I left it in December. I doubt that I know how to read a merged history. Did the intervening editor rename, in effect, rather than delete the content?
-- P64 ( talk) 21:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm curious why you changed the name of Marvel Puzzle Quest to Marvel PQ. I've never heard it referred to that way. I always see it referred to as Marvel Puzzle Quest - on the Marvel website, on the publisher's website, on iTunes, Twitter, etc. Even if you Google search "Marvel PQ", everything that comes up says "Marvel Puzzle Quest". Nowhere do I see it referred to as Marvel PQ, aside from on the cover of the game, but that just seems to be for purposes of style. I mean, the logo for Nine Inch Nails is NIN, but that doesn't mean the Wikipedia page should be named NIN. Is there something I'm missing here?-- Bernie44 ( talk) 03:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
On 21 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gribshunden, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a sea monster figurehead has been recovered from the wreckage of Gribshunden, a 15th-century Danish warship? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gribshunden. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 01:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
08:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Lowellian, I am Qi Wu, a computer science MS student at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are working on a project studying the main article and sub article relationship in a purpose of better serving the Wikipedia article structure. It would be appreciated if you could take 4-5 minutes to finish the survey questions. Thanks in advance! We will not collect any of your personally information.
Thank you for your time to participate this survey. Your response is important for us!
https://umn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bvm2A1lvzYfJN9H
Here is the link to our Meta:Research page. Feel free to sign up if you want to know the results! https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Main/sub-article_relationship
Wuqi333444 ( talk) 05:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Lowellian—in addition to your post here could you weigh in further? Your post is being discussed further. Thanks. Bus stop ( talk) 09:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rush (video gaming) 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/Rush (video gaming) 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.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisencolin ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Lowellian. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Please review
the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators'
mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Lowellian.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Lowellian. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Since you have made at least 10 edits to Victoria's Secret Fashion Show, I thought you might want to comment on whether the accompanying templates should be kept.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
A quick heads up here before you go summarily reverting edits in progress at the Super Bowl XLIX: do not make summary reverts, and do not make reverts w/o cause.
You have done both. I am an experienced editor with some 40,000 Wikpedia edits to date. Thank you. 24.61.220.85 ( talk) 00:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I redirected Pac-Man Arrangement after discussing the nomination with another editor, not because it "was not going my way". Plus, redirecting hardly equates deletion. It leaves the window open for an article return if someone feels significant improvements can be made, as opposed to eliminating the page outright. Thanks. sixtynine • speak up • 05:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
redirecting it is essentially the same as deletion"—this is extremely irresponsible for an admin to say. It's totally within an editor's rights to redirect an article, per BRD, as it is another editor's rights to contest it. The article has been unsourced for a full decade. It is unfathomable to call it independently notable without providing any sourcing to back that position. I would also expect an admin to know that AfD is for deletion arguments only—if there is no rationale for deletion, it becomes a talk page merge discussion. czar 17:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.
13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence for the assertions in your edit summary? None of the decent sources at the bottom of the article mention its subject, and web-searches suggested the only actual mentions are in the listed web-forums. -- JBL ( talk) 14:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, everybody, could you please stop debating this chess piece on my user talk page and take the discussion to your own user talk pages, to the talk page of the relevant articles, or to the AFD discussion? Thank you. — Lowellian ( reply) 00:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much for cleaning up my responses on the proposed deletion conversation re an article I started to create about Delia Antal. I really try very hard to be a contributor of value to Wiki but I do have a lot to learn (especially with this kind of thing because I haven't dealt with it yet). I'm wondering if you can help shed a bit of light on this issue I'm dealing with - I saw a film called D'Ora and was impressed by the film and its star/writer - who did something quite brave with this film. I found enough links to support the article; and when it got questioned by Biruitorul - I went back and deleted the ones he pointed out as questionable; and just started adding new ones. I'm wondering if there's anything else I should be doing. Again, my goal is to always be a welcomed contributor! Thanks for any response you can give me. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akrumoftruth ( talk • contribs) 01:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Underdark 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/Underdark (2nd nomination) 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) 19:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
You undid my edit after I merged commerce.
There is duplicated content in trade since I copied and pasted content.
Please do not undo, it damages wikipedia.
Thank you
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorpzn ( talk • contribs) 04:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Don’t pages without discussing them first as you did with 2017 NCAA Men’s Division I Basketball Corruption Scandal. All page moves should be discussed and agreed upon on the article’s talk page. MitchellLunger ( talk) 00:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Lowellian. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Please see my last response at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Local_accounts_attached_without_a_visit_(and_welcomed_without_an_edit). — xaosflux Talk 22:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
There is an RfC at an article you have edited, to which you may wish to add your input: Talk:American Flagg!#Request for comment. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 17:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Starlabs 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/Starlabs 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jamie Allman. Since you had some involvement with the Jamie Allman redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. John123521 ( Talk- Contib.) 08:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
In any discussion on Wikipedia, we use the markup reserved to lists as a proxy for discussion and threading. WP:LISTGAP absolutely applies in this case, because it is about the wikitext, not about your understanding or intention about the wikitext.
Please revert your change and please don't introduce changes like that anywhere else in the future for talk pages. LISTGAP already provides the reasons why you should not. -- Izno ( talk) 14:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
<dl><dd><a href="/wiki/User:Izno" title="User:Izno">User:Izno</a>: The style I use of a blank line around paragraphs is common in discussion pages. <a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:LISTGAP" class="mw-redirect" title="Wikipedia:LISTGAP">WP:LISTGAP</a> is not relevant, as it is a guideline specifically for lists, not indented discussions: "Do not separate list items by leaving empty lines or tabular column breaks between them. This includes items in a description list (a list made with a leading semicolon or colon) or an unordered list. Lists are meant to group elements that belong together, but MediaWiki will interpret the blank line as the end of one list and start a new one. Excessive double line breaks also disrupt screen readers, which will announce multiple lists when only one was intended, and therefore may mislead or confuse users of these programs."</dd></dl>
<dl><dd>That is a guideline that applies to lists, and its intention is to not botch formatting of lists, which is why it is not relevant here: the discussion isn't a list. Unlike the case with lists, with indented discussions, the extra line doesn't change how the discussion is rendered in Wikipedia's resultant display. I find it much easier to edit the source when I can easily see where each of my paragraphs end and where someone else's comment ends and my comment begins. You yourself used a blank line between your two paragraphs in the comment you just posted here on this user talk page.</dd></dl>
<dl><dd>I don't go around wholesale changing others' comments; please respect the same for me. When I posted my comment <a class="external autonumber" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29&diff=855329782&oldid=855310047">[1]</a>, notice that I did <i>not</i> insert a space between your comment and TheDJ's. I put spaces around the paragraphs of <i>my own</i> comments, which had spaces around them when I originally posted those comments; it had nothing to do with you. I get that the border between comments from two users is "shared" between both users, so if you want to remove the blank line between your own comment and mine on that Village Pump discussion, go ahead: since we share that border, I won't object, and you can have the borders of your comments there, even those shared with me, in the style you prefer. But please don't wholescale edit all my comments that you weren't even sharing a border with. Thank you.</dd></dl>
<dl><dd>—<a href="/wiki/User:Lowellian" title="User:Lowellian">Lowellian</a> (<a class="mw-selflink selflink">reply</a>) 15:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
<dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd>First paragraph</dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl>
<dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd>Second paragraph</dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl>
<dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd>Third paragraph</dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl>
::::
:::: First paragraph
::::
:::: Second paragraph
::::
:::: Third paragraph
<dl><dd>First paragraph</dd>
<dd></dd>
<dd>Second paragraph</dd>
<dd></dd>
<dd>Third paragraph</dd></dl>
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Easy Transfer, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Legacypac ( talk) 20:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello Lowellian,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Insects as food for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, entomophagy..
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
TheLongTone ( talk) 14:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Insects as food 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/Insects as food until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spinning Spark 22:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Insects as food 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/Insects as food (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 14:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Lowellian. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi! can you please check out this Florian Munteanu case. I've seen plenty of pages here on Wikipedia with actors who played a single role in a movie. I don't understand why some people complain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4F8:1C17:404A:0:0:0:1 ( talk) 14:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey, just for clarification, as I don't honestly know, but if that's the case, then why do all the previous year's drafts have it this way? For instance, all the teams in the 2018 NFL Draft direct to their 2018 season, as do the teams on the 2017, 2016, 2015, etc. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 19:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Lowellian...I started the page with the correct syntax, then lost my mind while trying to trim my wordiness. Nice of you to take the time to correct it.-- Bonnielou2013 ( talk) 21:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Lowellian,
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Xevus11 and it's nice to meet you :-)
I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Cancerverse should be deleted. Your comments are welcome over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cancerverse .
You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Xevus11}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
. Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Xevus11 ( talk) 02:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Administrators
must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
The article Transnationality has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Article lacks citations. Its is a broader perspective stating a concept. Don't know the purpose of its existence.
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.
!dea4u
11:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Legends of Tomorrow eps. Since you had some involvement with the Legends of Tomorrow eps redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Gonnym ( talk) 17:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
There’s a discussion at Talk:Foreign relations of China#It’s time to split the article at 1991 which may be of interest. ch ( talk)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sancia. Since you had some involvement with the Sancia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 02:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
-- User:Martin Urbanec ( talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
The article Jann of the Jungle has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Fails 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)
21:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jann of the Jungle 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/Jann of the Jungle until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN ( talk) 22:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ho Yinsen 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/Ho Yinsen until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Onel5969 TT me 21:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The article Moon-beast has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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.
Urhixidur (
talk)
15:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)