Hello and welcome Information

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{ Whisperback|your username|Topic section}} on my talk. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{ Whisperback|Centrepull|Topic section}} on your talk. Please click here to leave me a new message.

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

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

While I disagree with the attitude of User:Snowspinner (now known as User:Phil Sandifer) shown in that discussion and consider it anti-community, one should note that it has been clarified since then that the Articles for Deletion process is not a vote. I think you should let the dust settle on this issue for a while (perhaps another year) before bringing it up again for another AfD. Adding {{notability}} to the page is not really helpful.

Again, welcome!  -- Grouse 17:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

These discussions are preserved for the historical record and are not intended to be edited once closed, so I've removed your comments. If you wish to take issue with the decision, bring it up at Wikipedia:Deletion review or propose it for deletion again by starting a new discussion by following the instructions on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion page. Thank you. Gamaliel 18:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

If you excise everything else and judge him by his credentials as a journalist, Wikipedia's standards say keep. Why this sudden, strong interest in a year-old debate? :)

— Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 22:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I replied to your email, but it keeps bouncing, so I'll post it here:

CP,

Thanks for wanting to be a part of this project.

The Farivar article has been nominated for deletion twice, and obviously has survived both. The last nominaiton wasin August 2005, so it is not too soon to renominate it. However since you are still learning the ropes I'd suggest waiting until you've mastered talk pages. I'd also suggest reading the previous nominations so you can see the issues raised already.

I have no special interest in the article. There was a contrhttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_image.png Embedded imageoversy about the article that attracted my attention, and I've just been in a maintenance mode. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page once you've figured it out. do Cheers, Will

PS: Reading this talk page I see you seem quite concerned about this article, and it lookslike you may have a personal bias in the matter. - Will Beback 22:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hmmm, I took no further part in the Farivar controversy while I learnt the ropes, but I 'do' think that the final decision to delete was the correct one. It was a self-produced vanity page, and nothing more than that, and such articles degrade the perception of WKP, and act as a poor precedent for others. Centrepull ( talk) 09:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I wasn't the one who put that in the article, I was merely quoting that from the existing article so that my comments about that would make sense. -- R'nway [ T C ] 22:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry for the delay, I've been on wikipedia break (but not mediawiki). The main reason I removed that AfD because the article had just survived an AfD a few days before. Turnstep 23:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you, thank you thank you for removing the idiotic pseudo political claptrap from Somers Town article Luckyles 12:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello, I posted an answer to your query on the talk page of this article. Shinerunner ( talk) 13:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Longbow in city scrshot 4 wikiped.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 14:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi - I AM the "KIWI" audiophile (music fanatic) at QUIX - NZ whom entered the discussion page yesterday - on the FFN Various Inc saga... Well - I actually "HAVEn't been to sleep yet - as I did some more research late last night - & in looking for a trademark name of mine - was slightly "horrified" to DISCOVER that a "site" of various Inc - of the FFNetwork - had "Heisted" two of my (NZ) Company's HAND DRAWN (by me) Colour graphics. I came back here - AND YES... all my "question - comments were "ERAZED" well something mysterious has happened folks. THAT has come back - to bite them - BIG TIME.

Today - I sent two emails - detailing the two picks (and several mirror image profles they had instigated on "other sites" had been discoverecd by me. Most importantly - I tod the to remove my (NZ) Company drawings.

Then later - I sent another - telling them - Oh - don't worry - forget it? Why - well gee - they did - (by heisting those two drawings) More GOOD than any harm.

Those two drawings "publicaly display - Upwards of 9.3x & 10.5 channel "ANALOGUE" suround sound systems... thus BLOWING both Dolby & SRS Labs - clean outa the water. (& Various Inc did it... UNWITTINGLY - for ME). Cheers Various Inc. Thats one huge piece of free advertising. (Keith) QUIX - NZ

Hello,

This page was first created by members of the VistaPrint public relations team (myself included) and we have worked diligently with WKP editors who have closely monitored the page to keep the page very neutral in its content. As you can see by the extensive edits, none of the new content or changes have been added by myself or JeffEspo20 (the other member of the VistaPrint pr team). These changes and edits have been made by independent people who have taken it upon themselves to make the changes. There is nothing on this page that is in any way inaccurate or misleading, and each section is backed up fully by independent articles as sources, including the New York Times and the Boston Globe, which is why I'm confused about your tag. We have also been very up front about our ties to the company with editors and in explaining any changes or edits we have made to the page. I would appreciate a fuller explanation as to why you think VistaPrint's page is any different from any other company page like Staples, OfficeMax, or FedEx in terms of layout and content. Jaykeith29 ( talk) 14:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello,

So I have to ask then based on your previous assertion that we somehow coerced reputable media outlets like the New York Times and the Boston Globe to write positive stories on us, what IS a good source? The fact is that none of the information in the article is in any way inaccurate. In fact most of it is pulled from public documents and statements, as VistaPrint is a public company and is therefore mandated to file results publicly. As for the tone of the article being overly superlative and lacking in other areas, why haven't the people who have made extensive edits to the page addressed this? They are the ones that built it up in the first place. And again I ask you, in what way is this article any different in tone, style, and content than similar ones from Staples, OfficeMax, and FedEx. I would appreciate a little more than your own opinion in this matter - perhaps some facts to back up your previous statements. I can't see how we're differing from other similar pages and topics. Jaykeith29 ( talk) 21:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello,

I still see no justification for the claims that you have made or the tag that you put on the article, including the article being too full of superlatives, etc. As you can see we have had some very unbiased contributors to our page and they have done what they felt was necessary to make it neutral. And when I say releases I mean publicly filed SEC and earnings releases where facts are pulled from, not run of the mill press releases. You'll note that none of the material in the article has been pulled from any press releases (outside of ones we are legallly obligated to provide such as earnings, SEC filings, etc.). We were told early on that they were not considered a legitimate source and followed the guidance appropriately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaykeith29 ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

hello - after digging around a little on the WP:RFC/A page i've concluded that you're the editor who's trying to request an RfC in the "economy & trade" section - but you've placed the template on the RfC list itself, rather than on the talk page of the article you want the RfC to be about. the result is that no one can see which article they're being invited to comment on - instead, it lists the RfC list itself as the subject of the RfC. so i thought you might want to remove the listing and try again. the instructions for listing an RfC are here; but again the heart of the error is that the {{RFCecon}} template (filled out per the instructions, of course!) should be placed on the talk page of the article of concern. after you do that, a bot automatically enters the article on the RFC list. hope that helps ... Sssoul ( talk) 13:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

update: i've gone ahead and removed the RfC template from the page it was erroneously listed at, but just in case here's what it said:

{{RFCecon| section=RFC VistaPrint !! reason= I tagged the page as I perceived NPOV issues, extraneous material and unwarranted minimising/omission of well-known ongoing consumer complaints issues. Editors of page are self-admitted PR workers for VistaPrint. As I have limited experience, please help adjudge/convert this page to WKP norms !! time=~~~~~ }}

if you want to initiate an RfC, you need to put that template on the talk page of the article the RfC is about - i gather that would be Talk:VistaPrint Sssoul ( talk) 23:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply

hello Centrepull - thanks for your note, and i'm glad my instructions made sense to you. the RfC looks better now ... except that normally the template should be put in its own section of the talk page (not at the top), with a brief statement of what the RfC is supposed to resolve, space for discussion, etc. if you have a look at Talk:Pop music you'll see an example at the bottom of the page.

for some extra-fancy finetuning: the "section=" part of the template is supposed to match the name of the talk-page section where the RfC is to be held - the way you've filled out your template above, the section on the talk page would be called "RFC VistaPrint". that way, when your RfC is listed on the RfC page, when people click on it they will be whisked off to that exact section of the page.

hope that helps, and that the RfC is fruitful. Sssoul ( talk) 09:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply

i'm sorry, i have no experience at all with images on wikipedia - i'd suggest you ask at the WP:Help desk. good luck! Sssoul ( talk) 13:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi there, YEs, you may be right as I have just realized I have uploaded to wikipedia an unknown, alternate cover of the album not to mention i haven't mentioned all the tracks on the articles either, This is due to the fact that when Idownloaded a Bob Marley torrent previously it was incomplete and only had these 10 tracks. So yes as it is a torrent I'll take the information i get from an unknown but very well seeded torrent with a grain of salt. http://www.jadrecords.com/old/skank.html Check out this link - I hope to hear back from you with more evidence and facts about this album =] Cheers Monbro ( talk) 17:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply

PS I'm wondering if youre into Bob Marley, Damian Marley or Ziggy Marley and the Melody Makers?

I have no interest in fighting the person who OWNS that page. Look at the talk page. The phrase "dirty, dangerous and demeaning" has nothing to do with any of the things mentioned in the article. It is a very specific phrase, probably not notable. My life is too important, and no-one's going to die from being misinformed about this concept. If you want to file a complaint about their behaviour, I'll back you up. Mostlyharmless ( talk) 11:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Hello, I see this discussion topic is already started. Thank you for your kind words Mostlyharmless, it is nice to read your intuitive comments once again. Centrepull, your interest in the DDD article is welcome, it is nice to have someone to discuss the issues of this topic. I have two notes to make with your comment on the DDD discussion page. First, the term implies a connotation, what is this connotation to you or are you specifically referring too (just to remove any ambiguity)? Second, The occupations you listed are all referenced as DDD occupations. Are there any occupations referenceable as DDD that are not included in the article? Can you elaborate on why this categorization is dependent on the region? Once again, your interest and efforts to improve the content of the article and better define the scope of the terms use academically, commonly and by Non-government Organizations (NGO) are appreciated. (sorry for the red link, it upsets Mostlyharmless) Granite07 ( talk) 20:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply

It has taken a year but I have finally been able to formulate a response to your post on Talk:Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning. Please review and continue the conversation as I also agree the issues illustrated by the article are not fully developed or properly represented. It would be nice to articulate the root causation, emotional aspects and meta issues, as well as provide examples. Granite07 ( talk) 18:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Clearly the article could have been saved as you re-wrote it at StreetSounds (record label). All you had to do was to overwrite the text at Street Sounds (record label) and then move the page to StreetSounds (record label) which would have saved the history of the article as well. -- JD554 ( talk) 13:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually it's not too late to fix this correctly. You could over Street Sounds (record label) with the same text you've used at StreetSounds (record label) (remembering not to remove the AfD template at the top). Then you could request StreetSounds (record label) to be speedily deleted per criteria G7 (author request). When that page has been deleted by an admin you could withdraw the AfD nomination for Street Sounds (record label) (stating the whole plan) and when an admin closes the AfD move the page to StreetSounds (record label). -- JD554 ( talk) 13:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm not convinced you're right that the name is StreetSounds, most of the references you've added to the new article show it as Street Sounds (with a space), as does the company's official website. -- JD554 ( talk) 13:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Your rewrite has issues. Discogs is not really a reliable sources as far as I remember from previous discussions and linking to the news report directly presents possible problems with piracy. Any chance of impprovement on that? - Mgm| ^(talk) 13:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• I'll have to look into the first bit of your response in more detail, but regarding YouTube: it is indeed their responsibility to remove it if it is a copyright violation, but there is a policy that explicitly prohibits linking to material you know to be a copyright violation (I think it was WP:EL). YouTube would be responsible for hosting but the person linking it would be responsible for the material's dissemination by giving it a larger audience. That's part of the reason why most YouTube links are not suitable references. - Mgm| ^(talk) 19:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• According to our own article on Discogs, they accept submissions that take effect immediately which would make it equally unreliable as wiki sites that we generally shouldn't cite. I'd add a discog link to the external links section, but cite any reliable references discogs offers directly. - Mgm| ^(talk) 19:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

You are obviously very upset by the Biggles article - I assume you would much rather it (the article) wasn't there at all. We all feel like that about some Wiki articles of course. I admit that (sadly) you comments are not entirely without basis. None the less, I have answered you on the article talk page as follows - please do not take offence, and don't fall into the racist's trap of "labelling" me becaue I am not an exact clone of yourself. Calm down, and be sensible, or you'll end up bashing your head against a wall of reversion. Of course you may end up wrecking a perfectly good article (albeit one you don't approve) - which somehow I think is actually not what you intend.

Wikipedia would cease to exist tomorrow if POV took over. NPOV is a very important concept. Many of us (probably all of us - at least all of us capable of independent thought) have strong opinions on various subjects, but there are (generally) other places to air them - and a Wiki article (as opposed to a discussion page), is just not the place. The article does already mention the negative racial aspect of some of the Biggles books - as well as some of the aspects (like positive non-white characters) that could have been deeply disturbing and upsetting to a typical 30s racist. I suggest it probably does so quite enough. The question is not a simplistic one - one DOES have to be fair and cover both sides - to do this really well would mean a MUCH londer article, and would leave no room for anything about the books themselves at all. I am not prejudging your intended edits before you write them, I might even be an enthusiastic supporter of what you eventually say. I am just asking you to preserve a sense of proportion - and to keep your own POV in its place. Otherwise what you say is (rightly) almost certain to be promptly reverted. I will now proceed to state my own POV on this question (which would be, very correctly, reverted on the spot if it intruded into a Wiki article, incidentally).

It is, alas, NOT the racism of the first half of the last century (or that of the eighteenth or nineteeth centuries for that matter) that we are (or should be) concerned with - but the racism of today. I cannot feel that self righteous posturing about figures of the past has any real effect other than obscuring modern racism, which is sometimes really more subtle, but mostly just "looks" better (to us) because we are so used to it. Leave past racism in the dustbin of history where it belongs - tackle the racism of now head on, rather than dissipating well-intentioned efforts with unfair judgmentalism about people who lived in a totally different world. Just imagine how we might be judged, "forty years on"!-- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 12:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I was waiting for you to rewrite this section (on the whole - in spite of what I said above - I agree it needed rewriting) - I've inserted a more or less totally new section which may serve as a basis for further discussion, at least! Have a look at it and let me know what you think. -- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 02:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your very detailed reply - I am really (at least for the moment) only interested in the questions you raised in so far making a reasonably accurate and balanced article, so I won't do a complete or detailed reply - just a couple of points.

I am glad to be mistaken about your feelings about the article - I'm sure on reflection you can understand why I thought you were more "anti-Biggles" than is the case. I am not especially "pro-Biggles" for that matter - it was just a part of my (very distant) youth.

Preparing for this rewrite I read up on what the political correctness brigade had to say about Biggles (several sources - not just the one I ended up citing) - and "simplistic" is excactly what some of them were - Biggles is completely unreservedly unacceptable in their eyes, and is liable to cause all kinds of damage to young minds. The is NOT totally unjustified - but it isn't entirely justified either. If you can think of a better way to say this - by all means! On the other hand the Biggles books are not always free from thirties racial attitudes (the period marked the rise of Hitler, and racism DID hit a peak) and this does need to be stated clearly and fairly. I hope I now have the balance about right? I am not entirely happy with the sentence about the very worst of the Biggles books being indefensible (although they are, of course) - again, if you think you have a better, less POV way of putting it then (I'm sure there is one) then let's have it!

My own family is mixed racially - and I am very concerned that well intentioned people often see racism is a thing of the past and either fail to notice current racism, or actually think it is not worth mentioning or tackling. That what I was talking about when I said we'd be better off bothering less with the past and more with the present. Probably the less we get bogged down with that one the better though. Regards - -- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 10:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Are you saying you suspect a non-abnormal number of Irish clerics were homosexual men? I wonder on what grounds you think this. Due to traditional discrimination and disapproval of active homosexuality in Catholic-dominated cultures, I would suspect that more Catholic homosexual men might be willing to accept celibate priesthood than Catholic heterosexual men, as many of them might already be celibate in line with Catholic doctrine. I certainly can remember reading that gay priests are more likely to remain in the church, as in the past they would not have been able to marry. Perhaps irrelevant, but I believe that there are issues under discussion within the Anglican church also regarding their reliance on gay men as clerics in difficult parishes such as inner-cities that are regarded as unsuitable for families. Centrepull ( talk) 11:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I think I meant abnormal, not non-abnormal. I don't think the inner-city explanation is really enough to explain the whole phenomenon. One interesting theory however is that the priesthood is sectarian by nature, and that homosexual and pederastic groups are also very sectarian. Therefore, since both have this sectarian character, there is a good chance that they will end up encountering each other, something that would eventually cause the kind of damage that we've seen. ADM ( talk) 13:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for uploading File:D500codenamecorona.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Vinhtantran ( talk) 08:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:UNICEF madagascar name6 2007.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{ di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly ( Parrot) 19:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:D500codenamecorona.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{ di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 72.88.104.182 ( talk) 01:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi,
I suppose there were a couple of issues. The original phrasing tended to imply that she was some sort of anomaly, that her choice in dress was some sort of personal and original statement. Straight from East Coast to Lady Sov. I considered that phrasing to be incorrect. She is part and parcel of a style in the UK. She comes organically out of a UK style so her connection to the US is indirect, not direct.

I believe if you check the article on "chav" you will find her mentioned as an exemplar of the style. I don't believe in duplicating a citation in instances such as that.

I remember the first time she came here to Toronto, the newspaper -- if I remembered which one, I would cite it -- interviewed her, and the interview was all about her hoodie. The clothing style/culture, to my recollection, mattered as much as her music, and she was all about how her clothing defined people's impressions of her, and how she liked to hang out in malls with her hood up just to create a provocation, daring security to kick her out.

And that was back home in Britain, not on this side of the Pond.

So, as far as citations go, your article is higher profile than the ones I edit. In mine, if I have imperfect sourcing on essentially valid information, I let it sit there since the sourcing may appear spontaneously at some point. Your case is somewhat different since you're dealing with a high-profile biography.

Your call.

Cheers, Varlaam ( talk) 17:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC) reply

My main concern with this group of articles was the implication that one particular arrangement was a an accepted standard (the Strauss & Howe scheme-- a scheme which extended to much more than just a set of generations, but was proposed as a multi-century cyclic historical theory, & generally considered nonsense by historians. ) From this, I saw the inclusion of scattered "defining" cultural references from particular aspects of culture without any attempt at selecting the true characteristic ones--a method otherwise known as making a linkfarm. Then, there was the overlapping and multi-meaning nature of the terms. and the arguments about just what went where was which--as if there were only one possibility, and as if there were only one definition. As I see it the terms refer to aspects, not the entire cultural background. I never meant that such articles could not be written. I'll comment at the article if I have a chance. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi there. Your nomination of this article appeared to be incomplete, so I finished it by tagging the article with the AfD tag. More information on listing articles for AfD is found on this page. Best, -- Bfigura ^{( talk)} 03:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

See Talk:A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man#Joyce's location while writing the novel for a reply to your comment. 68.165.77.243 ( talk) 03:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Logo-expresscard.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. Skier Dude ( talk) 04:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, given the rendering software that it being used, png files have better scalability. You can find some more details at {{ ShouldBePNG}} Skier Dude ( talk) 04:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I've cut and pasted this from my talk page!-- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 23:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I have made comments on the state of the racism section of this article. I thought you might be interested to have a look at some stage. I'm concerned that editors who evidently have no understanding of the definitions of racism consistently edit the article to present the books in what they see as a better light. Biggles really appears to be a sacred cow to some subjective eyes, and the results are clearly deleterious to the article. I welcome your input in particular here. Centrepull ( talk) 19:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The problem, as ever, is NPOV. We are all racist about someone, I fear - as an Australian I tend to have negative feelings about Poms and Yanks, especially white ones. The black ones are mostly OK, mind you, but even them... So long as I recognise this nonsense for what it is and don't let it influence my writing (for Wiki or anyone else)!!!. The facts are, in short, that at least three Biggles books are inexcusably racist (as reading for modern children, at least) - this needs mentioning (and it is) and the books need "naming" (they are). A good many others have casual remarks about mixed race people being inherently second-rate, especially if the "black side predominates" - this seems to be an airing of Johns' own little pet prejudice and is also petty inexcusable (in any context, actually). On the other hand there are instances of quite an "advanced" attitude for the time that (in the interests of NPOV) must get a mention (and do). Attitudes in a community at a particular time ARE RELEVANT - to say they are not, and there is some kind of absolute standard of racial "non-prejudice" that is utterly timeless and to which all writers past and present must (retrospectively!) follow is in itself highly prejudiced, and is positively vicious in its unfairness (to put it another way, it is every bit as ignorant, stupid and nasty as most other kinds of prejudice). The past is a different country, as a great writer has remarked.

While there is probably a good case for hacking away at the section, and I will do so a bit later - this section (while I agree it needs to avoid whitewashing over unpleasant facts) also MUST be fair and balanced - nothing to do with sacred moo-moos at all. -- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 23:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 16:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply

No worries, I'll leave it alone to avoid edit conflicts. Template:inuse or Template:underconstruction might help stop others from doing the same :) _Will^Dow (Talk) 16:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello Centrepull, thank you for your contributions on articles related to PBS Kids. I'd like to invite you to become a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject PBSKids, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of PBS Kids articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks!

Good job on the Roxxxy edit. This has needed some attention for some time, and I think the changes you've made are appropriate and even-handed. Mark Shaw ( talk) 14:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC) reply

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Meet the Quagmires Santana Cycles The Music Hall Guild of Great Britain and America Pope Manufacturing Company Prophete Magenta, Marne Alligator Woman Japanese cyberpunk Corbel (typeface) Can't Stop Me Inside the Soviet Army Bridgestone Picnica Rio (film) Campion Cycle Company Body whorl Hipnótika Clive Hunt Premier Motorcycles Triumph Cycle

Cleanup Lewis Carroll Sunbeam (motorcycle) Cowlick Merge Wireless network interface card List of animated feature-length films Device Management Add Sources ZF Sachs Fender (vehicle) Libtorrent (Rasterbar) Wikify Raleigh Twenty Charlie Cunningham Michael Sabo Expand The Splendid Source Armed Forces of the Republic of Kazakhstan Bicycle gearing

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom ( talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 14:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 18:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC) reply

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC) reply

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 02:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Longbow in city scrshot 4 wikiped.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC) reply

– MuZemike 14:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Mwmercsbox.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 06:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC) reply

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 06:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 19:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply

The article Post-production hell has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NEO. Sources do not use the term at all, and I can't find anything supporting the use of this as a term.

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 05:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC) reply

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 21:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi. When you recently edited Iroko, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Basque and Yoruba ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC) reply

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 15:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC) reply

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 13:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 15:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC) reply

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 04:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC) reply

The article Windows Post-Install Wizard has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable software.

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. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 14:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:WPIsig.png. 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) 18:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hyundai Veloster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page VED. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 15:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC) reply

To you here. Cheers. Swliv ( talk) 21:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Andrew MacKinlay may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• a comprehensive called [[Salesian School (Chertsey)|Salesian School]], Highfield Road, [[Chertsey]]), and [[Kingston College (England)|Kingston College]]. He worked from 1965 as a committee clerk

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 14:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Andrew MacKinlay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexander Polyakov. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oikos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cradle. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Dirty Gold page, your edit caused a missing references list ( help | help with group references). ( Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:55, 13 October 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) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi. I now longer have any interest in that article - please do what you like with it. Also please stay off my Talk page. Thank you DBaK ( talk) 10:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi, back in 2008 you created the article Global Data Flash Storage which has been an orphan ever since. I’m trying to deorphan it and it looks like the best prospect is Key-value database. This article categorises databases by type and I don’t know what type GDFS is. Do you? I can’t find any sources for it. If you’ve any thoughts on how to deorphan they’d be very welcome. Thanks. Mccapra ( talk) 05:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

03:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC) reply

-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 09:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply