Hi and welcome to wikipedia. I hope you like it and decide to stay. Here are some handy links for newcomers.

• Welcome
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Help pages
• Village pump
• Help desk
• Wiquette
• Wikipedia:Merge

Also you can sign your name on talk pages and vote pages with three tildes like this ~~~, and your name with a time stamp with four like this ~~~~. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. Father Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 03:59, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

James Kerwin has contacted Wikimedia via OTRS to confirm that he and Amber Benson were romantically involved, the relationship changed amicably, and if you are in need of this communiqué please contact me. - Amgine 17:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks, not sure it's needed for the mediation right now. You may want to make a note of it on the Amber Benson talk page. BrownHornet21 02:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

There have been some developments in the mediation case; you might want to check the page when you get a chance. - Hit bull, win steak ^(Moo!) 22:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the heads up, I have decided to suspend mediation to see how the RFCU shakes out. BrownHornet21 00:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

It's a funny coincidence that Kerwin would contact the foundation just now, when his possible relationship with Amber Benson is the subject of mediation. It is an even funnier coincidence that the main editor on James Kerwin is a group of anonymous IPs from the same range as are involved in this mediation. I am beginning the think the whole story should be summed up and posted to WP:ANI. Thatcher131 00:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

It does kind of have that look, doesn't it? Apologies for dragging y'all into this. - Hit bull, win steak ^(Moo!) 02:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

No apology necessary - I volunteered for this mediation. "Oh, this one looks easy . . . ." BrownHornet21 02:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree. Amgine, is there any way to verify this "contact" via OTRS? It sounds bogus. What email address did it come from? Is there a way of contacting the individual via an official website, agent, publicist, etc. to verify? 172.190.11.119 11:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Also, the anonymous IPs in question all appear to be San Francisco area PacBell addresses. Am I correct? Could this help narrow down who is doing this? 172.190.11.119 11:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

(Note, I'm mainly replying here because I don't know where else this AOL user will see my comments.) I want to stress that I believe that any identifying information in the e-mail (such as the IP address from which it was sent) should be treated within the same privacy guidelines as checkuser info and should only be disclosed by the arbitration committee. Even if Cuthbert is James Kerwin, he can still edit as long as he is not disruptive. Should Cuthbert continue to be disruptive (and I note here there was an ANI report on an IP in this range acting up on Rick Berman and Amber Benson before the Cuthbert account became active) I would recommend either asking for a community ban on WP:ANI (based on behavior and the circumstantial evidence) or filing an RFAR (at which point the Arbcom will have the technical means to check accounts against the OTRS e-mail). Most of the IPs involved are Pacbell and the reverse DNS puts them in the Los Angeles area, except for 71.158.149.97, which is a different ISP and I suspect is Cuthbert's work address, since it seems to be static and was apparently autoblocked when Morwen blocked Cuthbert. There are only about 20 million people in the LA area, though, so this doesn't narrow it down much. Thatcher131 16:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

What I was asking is, is there a way to contact the individual directly via an agent or publicist, etc and verify whether he sent this supposed email to Amgine? It doesn't strike me as something someone would do. 172.192.152.14 21:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

See here for an explanation of the system. You would have to ask Amgine directly as to what he confidence level was that this was accurate. Thatcher131 22:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I just left a comment on the page that is important to the situation. --- Lid 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi BH, sorry if this sounds a little bit impatient, but is there a way we could reach a resolution on the Tumen issue soon? To me, keeping the refugee information seems pretty straight-forward, and it'd be nice to move on to other things. Anyway, thanks for mediating this case, it's been very helpful to have a third-party voice. CES 11:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Hi, I've inserted a mediator's proposal on the page, and I'll leave Krnc a note about it. BrownHornet21 14:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I will definitely participate. Sigitas 09:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia (e.g., as a member of the Mediation Cabal) we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=400792384029 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.

Parc wiki researcher 23:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
PARC User Interface Research Group

Cool! I just completed the survey. Interesting stuff, keep me posted! BrownHornet21 00:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

We've awarded you this PARC research star in recognition for your contribution to research about conflict in Wikipedia. Thank you for your help!!! -- Parc wiki researcher 21:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply

A userbox you created, Template:User notjimbowales is currently up for deletion. Please participate in the discussion here. -- Zoz (t) 00:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello! According to Wikipedians in Dallas, you live in or hail from the great city of Dallas. WikiProject Dallas would love to have you as a member. WikiProject Dallas is a WikiProject designed to build a comprehensive and detailed guide about everything related to the City of Dallas on the English Wikipedia. If you'd like to join, go to the project page and add your name under "participants". Otherwise, you may be able to help out by checking the worklist for things to improve, or contributing to the discussion.

Attatched automatically using WP:AWB. drumguy8800  C T 04:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Would you like to join WikiProject Munich? You can sign up here here. Kingjeff 18:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, we have a heavy backload of cases at WP:MEDCAB and since you are on the mediator list I thought I would request your help. Thanks! -- Ideogram 10:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello BrownHornet21,

I'm currently in the middle of a PhD at the University of Bath, UK. I'm examining the way that mediation differs between face-to-face, video-conferenced and text-based meetings. You can get a gist of the research from my (somewhat sparse) homepage here.

I've been trawling through the MediationCabal archives and noticed that you've mediated in number of cases. Would you be willing to spare some time to talk to me about your experiences mediating? It'd help me out no end!

If you'd like some more info, you can leave a message on my talkpage or contact me via the e-mail on my homepage.

Many thanks

Matt
MattB2 14:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, BrownHornet21! I have proposed a WikiProject for Fort Worth, and I was just wondering if you were interested. Please show your support by going here and adding your name to the list of interested Wikipedians. To improve the quality of this and other Fort Worth-related articles, I believe it necessary now for this project to exist. Dallas, Texas, although not yet a featured article, is of signficantly higher quality than Fort Worth's article is. We need a few more interested members before the project goes into action. Thanks! -- Stallions2010 19:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello BrownHornet21

Thanks for agreeing to help me with my research.

What I would like to do, would be to ask you a few open-ended questions about your experiences of mediating in a text-based environment, and then chase up any further questions raised by your answers. You can write as much or as little as you want for each answer.

I'd also ask that you'd give your consent for me to report and/or quote part of your answers in my thesis and any subseqent publications. Obviously I will make the information as anonymous as possible (blanking out names and other identifiable references).

If you're still willing to take part, let me know and i'll provide you with the first raft of questions.

Thanks again,

Matt
MattB2 15:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Works for me! BrownHornet21 04:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Ok BrownHornet21 - here's the questions. . .

What I would like to do is ask a few background questions, a few open-ended questions, and then, based on your answers to these, i'd like to ask a few more detailed ones.

Background

1) How long have you been mediating for Wikipedia?

2) Were you given any specific training to be a mediator for Wikipedia?

3) Do you have any other experience of mediation/dispute resolution (if so, what is it and for how long)?

General

1) What factors do you find makes a dispute particularly difficult to mediate?

2) What makes a good mediator - e.g skills, attitude?

3) What difficulties are posed by mediating through technology?

4) In what way does technology help you mediate?

Answer as much or as little as you want to. If you could post the answers on my talkpage User:MattB2, or e-mail them to me via the address on my homepage [1], that would be great. However, i'm happy for you to post them here if you'd prefer. Any comments/questions, let me know.

Many thanks

Matt

MattB2 12:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello BrownHornet21,

Thanks for taking the time to help with my research. I've a few more questions i'd like to ask you, mainly concering the differences between 'real-world' and wiki mediaiton.

Differences/similarities between the environments

1) Are there any particular techniques or approaches that you find work well in both real life and wikipedia? If so, why do you think this is?

2) Conversely, are there techniques/approaches that you are more comfortable using in one of the environments than the other? and again, why do you think this is?

3) You mention that a weak mediator might 'doom the process'. IRL, how does a mediator come across as 'strong' (or at least 'not weak') and how might this be limited/enabled by the Wikipedia environment?

Thanks again.

Matt

MattB2 13:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

(I know it's not quite as prestigious as a PARC Barnstar - but the principle is the same!)

Thanks for all your help BrownHornet21. It's been very informative. I should have enough to go with for the time being, and I'll let you know if anything comes out of the research.

All the best.

Matt MattB2 08:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi BrownHornet21, this is a message I'm posting to everyone who participated in this AfD. I have nominated the same article for deletion again here – you might be interested. Regards, K issL 09:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply

		The Not Stupid Award
		This medal is awarded to BrownHornet21 for knowing how to prove that two is greater than one. You know one of the simplest proofs in the world! Great job!

You have been invited to join WikiProject U2, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the U2-related articles on Wikipedia. You recieved this invitation due to your interest in U2 and/or your many edits to U2 articles. If you would like to join, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of project members. Thank you, Dream out loud ( talk)

I have tagged Image:Basketball_front.jpg as {{ replaceable fair use}}. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. MER-C 11:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• I would dispute it, but honestly, not many people on Wikipedia understand fair use, which is fairly obvious from the policy that goes well beyond the fair use exemption. Maybe you guys need to go further, kill the whole concept of Wikipedia, and start wiping pages that quote three words out of a book. (Guess what? You copied it from the book. That's copyright infringement.) It's clearly fair use, yet some random Wikipedian with no legal training or background had made a rather arbitrary decision about what does and does not consitute fair use. BrownHornet21 02:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Template:User twocents requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 21:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

K im u 00:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi! Hello! Howdy! You've been invited to the Dallas/Fort Worth meetup (part of Wikipedia:Meetup). If you are interested, visit our page and sign up and suggest something, or help us decide where and when the next meeting will be. Cheers!
Message delivered by SteveCrossinBot ( talk) 19:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply

But i was asked for a comment on Archives of Sexual Behavior from a general academic point of view. , and I placed it on the talk page for Lynn Conway DGG ( talk) 02:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello, I've protected an article that relates to the MedCom case you are currently mediating ( Andrea James). I've left a note in the Administrative section of the case. - MBK ₀₀₄ 00:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply

It was necessary for me to intervene on the Archives of Sexual Behavior article last night to stop the apparent reinsertion of material violating BLP. As is not unusual in such circumstances, I have now been accused by one of the parties of having a stake in the article & therefore not being an appropriate person to take administrative action--which in the end I fortunately did not need to take, but certainly said I would take if necessary. (this is quite customary whenever someone is dissatisfied with what an admin does if they previously had the least relationship with the question--but obviously requiring a new admin each time would destroy all continuity.)

I am going to try to give technical advice only. In a non-urgent situation, I will ask another admin to confirm. If you have any difficulties, you are welcome to email me from my user page.

Just thought I'd let you know that one of the parties BarbaraSue ( talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of a indef-blocked editor, per a confirmed checkuser result. - MBK ₀₀₄ 04:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for mediating the dispute with MarionTheLibrarian, whose edits reflect a clear POV related to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health/ Archives of Sexual Behavior. Are other parties allowed to comment on mediations on that page?

This is a complex matter for me, since (like Marion), I have a clear stake in what's going on (e.g. Marion and the sockpuppet making questionable edits to my biography). I am a longtime editor and a veteran of many heated disputes, so I am trying to be mindful of WP:COI, but (like Marion) I am also very well-versed in the controversy as a participant.

What's interesting in this case is that the controversy is about the clash between the cathedral and the bazaar: a sexology journal devoted an entire issue to how the internet was being used to undermine their monopoly and authority (they even mention Wikipedia as a culprit). As such, it seems that they are doing here what they try to do via their journal: control dissent by silencing critics who are using media that is not socially credentialed.

As far as Dreger (who herself describes her "investigation" as a "partial history"), many have noted that her paper is one-sided in reliable sources: "Dreger's personal involvement directly contributes to the one-sided nature of her story." Lane R (2008). Truth, Lies, and Trans Science. Arch Sex Behav DOI 10.1007/s10508-008-9336-y Lots more where that came from.

Anyway, I don't want to derail a mediation, but in the last week or so Marion has been aggressively editing only articles associated with CAMH, so there are a host of issues that need to be sorted out across multiple articles. I'm writing you because it seems the mediation is expanding as it continues. Thoughts on how to proceed/participate? Jokestress ( talk) 21:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Jokestress, you don't need an invitation to participate in the mediation. Please feel free to jump into the discussion and contribute. BrownHornet21 ( talk) 22:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply

If anyone knows how to restore the text to regular size, could you please feel free to do so, and show me how to do it for future reference? BrownHornet21 ( talk) 22:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply

fixed myself. BrownHornet21 ( talk) 22:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Dicklyon appears to have withdrawn from the mediation page; at least, he has ceased participating despite that he is continuing to make edits for the past three days at Archives of Sexual Behavior and other pages that the edit war has leaked onto. Because of that, in addition to a substantial history of what I believe are harassing behaviors, I have made an entry at WP:ANI. I understand that I am expected to notify all others who were involved in the dispute.

The entry at WP:ANI here.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by MariontheLibrarian ( talk • contribs) June 17, 2008

It seemed appropriate to notify you of Dicklyon's report that my editing violates COI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MarionTheLibrarian.
— MarionTheLibrarian ( talk) 01:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC) reply

If you've no idea who I am, you are receiving this message because of your British Empire UBX! If you are a regular editor to articles related to the British Empire please sign up (no pesky newsletters!) to the project and help better organise and improve articles within our scope! Thanks -- Cameron ( T| C) 21:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Dreadstar, I am the mediator on the Lynn Conway dispute. Since you initially protected the page, I thought I would drop you and PhilKnight (the admin who fully protected the page) a note to let you know that the two editors in question recently reached an agreement to not edit the "controversy" section of this article and other related articles. BrownHornet21 (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on mediating a successful resolution to the case. Are you asking that the article be unprotected at this time? I'd be glad to do so. Dreadstar † 18:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Since the clock soon runs out on article protection on July 1, no need to unprotect if it's too much trouble. I've asked the parties if there's any pressing need to immediately unprotect the page. BrownHornet21 ( talk) 18:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC) reply

No trouble at all, but I see PhilKnight beat me to it.. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Dreadstar † 18:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC) reply

In addition to the four options you had listed on the mediation page there had been another solution previously discussed which was to only list canidates with a majority of ballot lines. I have listed the details on the mediation page. XavierGreen † —Preceding comment was added at 17:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I have tagged Image:Pughcheck.jpg as {{ replaceable fair use}}. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. Rettetast ( talk) 19:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• The image falls under fair use, but I agree it can be replaced with a free image -- namely, someone taking the subject's photograph and uploading it to Commons. BrownHornet21 ( talk) 23:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, BrownHornet21. I appreciate that your role as our mediator is complete, but I hope you might provide some input nonetheless. Despite his and my agreement (and that it had been working well until now), Dicklyon has resumed editing the disputed pages. I have asked him on his talkpage to return to our agreement. He writes that BLP violations ought be an exception to our agreement, whereas I note that we did not include a BLP exception and that such exceptions would only lead to more warring, this time over what consitutes an exception. Please advise.
— James Cantor ( talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 15:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Dicklyon believes my edits have broken any agreement (to which I was no party in any case) regarding Conway's page. Dicklyon has falsely accused me of making BLP violations on Conway's page and on another, The Man Who Would Be Queen. The edit that I made on the Conway page (which will be restored shortly) is accurate and fair. Dicklyon clearly has the goal of keeping any mention of the Bailey controversy to a minimum. (Those familiar with the facts of that case will understand why Dicklyon, Conway's friend and unofficial Wikipedia editor, wish to keep it off.) Dicklyon and Marionthelibrarion never reached an agreement about the precise wording of an edit, and even if they had, it would not bind WP editors forever. (If I am wrong, please refer me to the WP rule that says otherwise.) The administrator who concluded that Conway is primarily known for her engineering contributions was mistaken, I think. Google Conway and her second hit is her transsexualism page. I think that a good analogy is the page of William Shockley. Much more distinguished scientifically than Conway (he did win a Nobel Prize), he still has a not-small section of his page devoted to his late life controversy, in his case speculating about race differences in intelligence. Conway has been accused of worse, in my opinion (e.g., making up false charges against another scientist in order to silence him). Note that my edits on Conway's page stop far short of taking a side on this issue.

(This paragraph is only indirectly related to Conway's page and the mediation agreement.) And as for changing "Juanita's" identity from "person" to "prostitute," well she is a prostitute--let me know if you want more evidence; it's easily provided. (I suppose I could say "prostitute and person," but that seems unnecessary.) It is a highly relevant fact, regarding both her credibility (She sells her body for money, and Dreger suggests that she also sold her testimony for money.) and Bailey's alleged wrongdoing. (How bad would it be if he had sex with a prostitute he wrote about?) ProudAGP ( talk) 16:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply

comment I was asked on my talk page to give an opinion, and my opinion is that the edit warring on that page over this is such that quite independent of the mediation, I will block AGP or Dick if they continue it, to prevent further disruption. Hornet, if you want to take a look at the page and edit it, please please do so, but if not, I will. I would have protected the article, but since you're not an admin, i wanted to give you the opportunity to resolve it, considering both the (excellent) mediation you have done so far, and my preference to not get involved again in this issue. DGG ( talk) 20:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the heads up. I'm a bit snowed under in real life at the moment, but I will review and provide my thoughts when I can come up for air. BrownHornet21 ( talk) 03:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:U6cover.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- FairuseBot ( talk) 20:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply

As you might remember, user:Dicklyon and I arrived at an agreement not to edit the controversy sections on the Lynn Conway or transsexuality-related pages. Although that had worked out for the most part, Dicklyon has now declared a unliateral end to that agreement, saying so here. This will, of course, greatly increase the problems on those pages, which now involve several editors other than me. Any input would be appreciated.
— James Cantor ( talk) 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I believe my intention was to declare a bilateral end; obviously, the agreement can't stand on one party. There's no reason this should increase the problems on those pages, is there? And BrownHornet, thanks again for your mediation help; it was useful. Dicklyon ( talk) 07:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

It would have been less ambiguous had I written "unilaterally declared an end," but my point stands nonetheless. You are declaring the end of your participation in an agreement without consultation/consent from the others involved (in this case, me). user:DGG has advised you to continue your participation in our agreement, and BrownHornet21's input would also be useful.
— James Cantor ( talk) 14:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the heads up. Work has been a bear, lately, but I'll try to sit down and review the issue in more detail before commenting further. Thanks, BrownHornet21 ( talk) 18:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I have submitted a COI/N notice regarding user:Jokestress, user:Dicklyon, and me here. I am notifying editors who contribute regularly to the related set of trans pages. Although your involvement was of a different nature, notfying you seemed appropriate to me nonetheless.
— James Cantor ( talk) 23:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I have submitted the request we have been discussing on COI/N to ArbCom here.
— James Cantor ( talk) 02:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Cerejota ( talk) 06:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I have taken the action of filing a user conduct RfC against Dicklyon based on his past and recent behavior. If you want to make your POV on this matter known please do. Users are needed to certify that the events as I presented them are factual, and they have to certify that outside help has been sought to address the issue. I have written this to every involved user in the mediation. Since Dick has proven that he will ignore any mediated arrangement when it suits him. The community must impose one on him. The proper venue for that is a user conduct RfC, not mediation. The proposed sanctions banning for editing any of the name space of the articles listed in the mediation, and from the user pages of any user who wishes to not have to deal with his mess any more. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dicklyon. Thankyou and have a nice day :-) -- Hfarmer ( talk) 19:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello. Please see the above link regarding the mediator for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I noticed that you are part of Category:Wikipedians against notability.

I would like to invite you to join the Article Rescue Squadron. Although Rescue Squadron members do not share any official position on notability, and are simply focused on rescuing articles for deletion, you may find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia.

Caveat: I am writing this as a wikipedian, not as a representative of Article Rescue Squadron. Ikip ( talk) 19:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello. Please see the above page as there has been a change in mediator and state whether or not you accept the new mediator. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi BrownHornet21,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

• Each casebook will have a subpage.

• Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
• It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{ anchors}} in Wikipedia ( example).
• Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.

• I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{ User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.

2. If you're a law student,

• Email http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Hornbook to your classmates, and tell them to do the same.
• Contact me directly via talk page or email about coordinating a chapter of "Student WP:Hornbook Editors" at your own school.

(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)

3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman  ^talk/ _WP:Hornbook 20:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

File:SamLindsay.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:SamLindsay.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:SamLindsay.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 17:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply

File:BarefootSanders.JPG is now available as Commons:File:BarefootSanders.JPG. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 22:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

File:BarbaraLynn.JPG is now available as Commons:File:BarbaraLynn.JPG. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 22:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

File:AJoeFish.JPG is now available as Commons:File:AJoeFish.JPG. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 22:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

File:Buchmeyer.JPG is now available as Commons:File:Buchmeyer.JPG. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 20:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Smyoukno.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:1984coffeeachievers.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk) 04:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Template:User BornMunich, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User BornMunich and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:User BornMunich during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Bulwersator ( talk) 07:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Goldsteinhouse.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 21:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC) reply

The file File:Rubmybelly.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused personal photo - WP:NOTWEBHOST

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert ( talk) 06:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

The file File:Scotfoldkitten.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused personal photo - WP:NOTWEBHOST

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert ( talk) 06:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Thanks for uploading File:U6cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 21#Category:Wikipedians who know where their towel is. It is proposed to delete this category. Spinning Spark 16:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply