User talk:Uucp

Welcome!

Can't Stop the Momentum actually was a motto that Enron utilized in their official corporate documentation. If you don't believe me I can show you examples.

--Ammenemes3 18:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Uucp, 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:

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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 02:46, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

About Michael P. Fay article

I was only rude to them because I go through the trouble of explaining each of my edits so that users looking through have a firmer grasp of what specificly was changed, only to have it continly reverted by some one who fails to adress there reasons. And I'll have you know that I was very polite in my first 2 edits, I explained specificly the contents where unsorced and that with out proper citation, they were needlessly damageing to Michaels character. It was reverted. As they failed to give an explaination and I already gave mine, I again removed the drug claims. Again, this was reverted, still with no citation that It ever occured. Again, I politely explained that with no citations it served no purpose on wiki other then to slander Fay, stating that "Untill a link is put stateing this as fact I will continue to revert it back". This was, then again, reverted with absolutely NO explaination. This is the 4th time this has happened and THIS, my friend, is when I decided to be rude. Let me tell you something. Accusing someone of butan abuse should be something taken VERY seriousely, as It easly damages a person, specificly one whom the media sympathises. Id also like to thank for takeing the step to bring in citations. Perhapse I did judge its validity to quickly without prior knowledge and know that it is not my intention to cencore or troll wikipedia.

Excite

Would you please refrain from removing valid information from the Excite page. Not only are you reverting to a page with clear plagiarized content but you are citing incorrect pages as justification.

I am a former executive of Excite@home with extensive information on the subject. If you wish to dispute the facts then please do so in a proper forum.

Photos

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Good work on the Armand Hammer United World College of the American West article. I'm just wondering where you got the photos. Did you take them yourself? If you did you should note that on the page of the image and also mention which image license it is released under. If you did not take them yourself you need to get permission from whoever did before they can be used on Wikipedia. - SimonP 20:00, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

cc-by-2.0 is perfect. Thanks. - SimonP 14:38, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

CodeWarrior

Hey, thanks for the cover on the CodeWarrior article. Much better. :) --Steven Fisher 03:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Armand Hammer etc.

I might make a fool of myself. But I'll take the bet and think it's you. Two pics added by you is too much of a coincidence. I was going to write that AHUWC article one day. I told ya it was catching, beware. ;-). notafish }<';> 14:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Must be the French nose, trained on good wine ;-). Glad you're here. The castle pic still does not have a licence, as far as I can remember. Don't forget to add one, or I'll have to ask for it to be deleted and upload one of mine...from 16 years ago. There are tons of things to do involving Wikimedia and UWC. I'm thinking up a few of them and will get back to you one day with tons of ideas, asking for advice. Hi to your better half and see you around :-). notafish }<';> 22:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Nagin

It's not a problem at all. Thank you for your very kind message and happy editing · Katefan0^(scribble) 23:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your Revert

There is simply not the information in any of the sources stated so i removed the subjective statement. thank you.

Hello, and welcome again

I see that you are hardly a new user, having contributed (nearly 600 edits) since May 2005. Please consider creating a user page to more fully identify yourself. Merry Christmas and other holidays. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 13:38, Dec. 25, 2005

Peter F. Paul

Hi. I noticed your changes to this article. While your information may be accurate, it cannot remain as long as the allegations are unsourced. If you decide to re-add the material, please provide sources for it and present it in an NPOV manner, or else it will have to be removed again. THanks. Danny 03:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm almost done with my first pass, but there's still a lot more work to do. Meanwhile, could you familiarize yourself with the use of m:Cite/Cite.php? We'll be making heavy use of that in the article. Thanks, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: 24.196.167.104 (talk · contribs) may have a certain agenda, but their recent edits such as this one are not vandalism in any obvious way. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CCC

Hey, Uucp, no need to pull your comments. The Talk pages just keep growing, and if they get too big, they get archived. It's good to preserve the history of interaction, so subsequent editors can have context. Thanks for your participation.--Gandalf2000 21:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It very well could have been the same CCC. American evangelical organizations are much more suspect in other countries. Good grief, in France the Baptists are considered a cult.--Gandalf2000 21:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I made a mistake trying to revert another page struck by vandles. First time on the vandle watch, it is a bit fast paced. --OrbitOne 23:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag on Vic and Sade

I've switched the tag on this article to {{cleanup-tone}}, as I could determine no actionable actions involving NPOV. - Amgine 04:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? {{prod}} can have a parameter.

Hello there. You have proposed the article Dougg Cheal for deletion without providing a reason why in the {{prod}} template. You may be interested to know that you can add your reasoning like that: {{prod|Add reason for deletion here}}. This will make your reasoning show up in the article's deletion notice. It will also aid other users in considering your suggestion on the Proposed Deletions log. See also: How to propose deletion of an article. Sandstein 17:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template substitution

I noticed you don't use subst for {{test-n}} or {{vw-n}}. I would suggest subst'ing these templates as well as others. Royboy crashfan 17:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harlem

I live in Mount Morris and like it, so I don't appreciate the catty comment in your edit summary. As for why I included it, I was expanding on something that was already in the article -- and I think it's perfectly appropriate that an encyclopedia article about the neighborhood should explain where it is, which includes its boundaries. I'm happy with your edits to what I wrote -- although I'm going to put an abbreviated definition of the borders of Morningside Heights back in, because boundaries defined by streets give more clarity than just "Morningside Park" -- but you could just have easily edited me without being a dick about it. WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, etc. --Polonius 21:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that...but I am confused=

Re Kaavya Viswanathan -- I am very confused about what just happened. I removed a section that was clearly vandalism (about the "pwnage" of this individual). However, the edit history reflects completely different edits than that which I actually made. Do you have any idea what could have happened? Thanks, and I apologize for any confusion. Xoxohthblaster 22:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For your reference, this is what I thought I was removing: [1] . Thanks. Xoxohthblaster 22:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think i just realized what I did -- I followed a link from a message board to an old version of this page and, without realizing that I was editing an old version, removed the offending passage, thus sending tht article all the way back. I apologize for not paying attention to what I was foing. Xoxohthblaster 22:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaavya Viswanathan

I take exception to the way you're handling the article.

My motivation for my other two edits was to subtly nudge the article back toward being a biography article and not the current events article it was turning into. My rationale is better explained on the talk page. But I'm not here to explain myself.

You reverted and noted your issues. I disagreed with the revert, but I still believe it was proper, and frankly, it was such a small matter that a talk page entry didn't seem to be merited. I re-edited it, added a caption that would seem to be less "cruel", and not only do you revert, you threaten me with the three-revert rule. Seems you automatically assume I'm some vandal and don't take into account that there might a valid reason behind my changes. It also seems like you're establishing yourself as the arbiter of the appropriate things to say about Viswanathan, without the admin privileges to back you up.

Frankly, if you wanted to make your preferences clear, you should have hit the talk page yourself and explained yourself better, instead of acting like an 800-pound gorilla on the revert button. And a side note, there is no need to default into hostility when you disagree and accuse people of improprieties for simple disagreements, from what I've seen on Talk:Gina Grant, you've done before. hateless 06:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to respond to this:

Now for your ad hominem attacks against me. You dislike my changes to the Gina Grant article and accuse me of being like a "school marm." My changes to Gina Grant were similar to my changes here (and to Malcolm X and Harlem and a number of other pages). Specifically, I stepped in with copious research to resolve contentious issues. On Visnawathan, I looked up every article about her and the book which appeared in the U.S. press before the plagiarism scandal. On Grant, I completed a similar survey of articles about Harvard's rescission of her position in the freshman class. The research takes hours, and you are the first person ever to complain about it.

No, I do not have any objection with what you wrote about Gina Grant, albeit as an aside I sense a bit of a self-congratulatory tone in your retort. Specifically, I pointed at the talk page. I think you went a bit too far in criticizing CagedRage in his edits. Saying CagedRage "disparaging the existing literature" is hyperbole, and frankly you seemed to ride roughshod over him and won your way because he wasn't interested in your hostilities. That is not the nature of Wikipedia, that is not the way collaboration is supposed to work. I suggest you assume good faith from others next time, especially if they do something you disagree with.

In my mind, school marms are relics of the past, authoritarian figures wielding rulers who are intolerant of being questioned. Stereotypical, maybe. But for people like that getting help or any recognition of their hard work here? Good luck. hateless 04:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I'm female. Thanks for the support, hateless. CagedRage 22:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder...

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 22:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prod of Category:Malcom X's Eulogy

Hi -- Just two friendly reminders. First, please use an edit summary when you propose an article for deletion. Edit summaries are always good to use, but especially important for prod, because prod tags should never be readded and the only easy way to check is to look at the edit history for helpful edit summaries. Second, I deprodded this page because it's not an article and WP:PROD is only supposed to be used for articles. I have listed it at categories for deletion instead. Thanks! Mango juice^talk 15:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seong Sil Kim v. NYCTA

Hey, UUCP. I can't find the NYT article on Westlaw, so I have removed the cite. If you could please point me to it, I would appreciate. Otherwise, I am concerned that the case is a NN tort case. It's a pretty big verdict, but no records were set and it's otherwise unremarkable. I also noticed that some sentences are verbatim from the NYLJ article, which is of course a copyright problem. I am itching to propose it for deletion. What do you think about that? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Fine. I will clean it up and explain why the case is notable. Please tell me the cite in Westlaw or in Lexis, your choice, and I will restore the NYT source. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, nevermind the last. I need to bone up on my westlaw skills - and you need to leave nicer edit summaries, it seems. But yeah... Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of Image:KaavyaViswanathan2.jpg for deletion

FYI, image deletions are handled on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion and are done differently than articles. BigDT 12:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in this case, because the fair use claim was that it was a magazine cover and it clearly is not, it may be eligible for a speedy deletion. I have tagged it as such. If an administrator rejects that claim, it may need to be listed on WP:IFD. I have also tagged your AFD for a speedy deletion since it is in the wrong place. BigDT

Your deletions on Further in March

Hey there, if you look at www.allmusic.com you will find evidence of releases for both band's named Further, i think they are both jammed into the same allmusic article but they're there. The Australian band has released another album on fierce panda in the UK also. Can you think about editing the Further page to give some choices on articles, or different uses of the word? It has now been taken over completely by another band's album title called 'further', it'd be nice to have all three choices there. Let me know what you think. Thanx Sebelbrandt

Hi Uucp! As the user who saved Further from spending it's life as a misspelling redirect, I'd like to add my 2 cents to this!

I did not just come by and "take over" the article! Before I did any edits, I did extensive research on both Further bands and did not find sufficient "evidence" to qualify them for their own article(s), just as you did. They do seem to be combined into one allmusic.com page, but that alone doesn't "qualify" them for article(s). The most coverage they get seems to be here on Wikipedia via broken/inaccurate/outdated links!

According to the Albums Wikiproject: "Do not pre-emptively disambiguate! When there is no other encyclopedic use of the album title, the article should reside at the normal name." A misspelling redirect does not really seem like a more valid "encyclopedic use" than a "qualifying" article.

If in the future either or both Further bands qualify for their own article(s), we could make Further a disambiguation page, but until then I don't really see the need.

Happy Wiki-ing! =D

Amaristee 23:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I do plan on expanding the article in the very near future! It is somewhat stub-ly! =) Amaristee 23:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why is that "most" notably?

Re: Earl Butz, "Most notably" in this case is the one with the greatest documented response. I don't think it was a judgement call to call it most notable, but don't mind the revised version either.

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Carol Yager.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC).

Ben Johnson

As far as i can tell the whole article needs to be rewritten. The POV language and lack of sources is a huge problem in the article. i tried to clean up the first section but did not have time for the whole article. David D. (Talk) 18:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i just google one of the sentences from the article and came back with this article from The Times. Clearly there is major plagerism in this article. It might be best to delete the whole thing and start again from scratch. David D. (Talk) 19:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And for your favourite section, just check out the following article. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9080-827124,00.html Many of the sentences are identical. it looks like this whole article is a cut and paste job from multiple sources. David D. (Talk) 19:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mindvox

Can you be more specific on the tone problems in the article? It would be helpful if you could just correct or delete what you consider problematic, but if you just want to leave the tag up that's fine too. Sdedeo (tips) 21:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm X from ...

I've been watching the Malcolm X article for some time, and I have reverted my share of vandalism. I think you have done the same.

In that context, I don't understand why you (without any justifying comment) reverted my reverting of a user who deleted all the longstanding categories for "People from..." to which Malcolm X properly belongs, except his birthplace of Omaha.

The "people from" categories are for places of residence, NOT specifically about birthplaces. See Wikipedia:Categorization of people, which says "The place of birth is rarely notable." This is a striking example of a place of birth being very little relevant to the subject's life.

But I'm not arguing that Omaha should be deleted, rather, that the others should be restored.

Lansing, in particular, is a notable place in Malcolm X's history as being where he spent his entire childhood and where his father was perhaps murdered. It was near Lansing where he attended high school and was discouraged from his ambitions by a teacher. Moreover, Lansing has a state historical marker on the site of one of his childhood homes. Kestenbaum 02:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[responses copied from my talk page]

I think we ran into some kind of technical glitch; it was not my intent to revert your change. I was merely changing his place of death from Harlem to Washington Heights, Manhattan. Both your edit and mine are time-stamped to the same minute, and mine must have trampled yours inadvertently. I certainly will not stand in the way of your including the other cities in his category list.

Unrelated, my serious beef with the article is that it is basically a summary of the Autobiography, which is, like most autobiographies, a selective and biased summary of the man's life. Changes made by editors in the past to include information from other sources have been swiftly edited out by others who reason, perhaps "this new material is less favorable to Malcolm X than the only source with which I am familiar, therefore this editor is biased and must be reverted." This article will not be good until that is fixed. Uucp 10:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I have fixed the categories (including alphabetizing him on category pages under X instead of M). Yes, strongly agreed that other sources should be used and taken seriously. Kestenbaum 16:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O'Sean's innocence

I didn't vandalize the Malcolm X webpage at all. I don't mean any harm by it. I'm just trying to speak and write the truth without any lies or opinions. Thanks for your concern, though. I appreciate it.

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cybertrend

I require the IP address(es)/name of the accounts you suspect for me to determin sockpuppetry. Iola k ana|^T 14:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction - done.

here. Hugs too. notafish }<';> 21:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I don't know what you need an admin for, but I'll do what I can. :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

Uucp, there's no need to keep removing spaces in front of refs. They may be written without or without spaces between the punctuation and the ref. Although many Wikipedians write them without a space, publishers write them with one, so either is acceptable on Wikipedia. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no policy or guideline saying there should be a space, or saying there shouldn't be. I personally think it looks odd without a space, and if you look at any book published by mainstream publisher, you'll see a space. It doesn't look so bad on WP when it's after punctuation, but it looks very odd when it comes directly after a word^[1] like that, because the ref ends up appearing to press against the letter before it. It's the square brackets that cause the problem. Anyway, I'm sure there are worse problems on Wikipedia to worry about. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomberg, Nexis-- how to

HI, How do I use these two resources? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

responding on your page.... Uucp 14:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Dlohcierekim 14:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Yager

Please take the time to confirm the facts before reverting my latest edits of the 'Carol Yager' article. Everything I posted was copied verbatim from the cited article, and available for public vewing at the Flint Journal's webpage. I'll probably be adding more information, as I go through my collection of old articles, etc., depending on whether I dig up any more facts that are pertinant.

66.227.139.214 02:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

request for immediate help

This is a request for immediate help from Kmaguir1 07:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC). If you have time, I'd like you to examine the Bell Hooks article and talk page. It's a scholarly article about a controversial writer, someone who drew the ire of a conservative commentator. They wanted me to go get the quote from her book, and I did that. But now, they're arguing it's not notable. As a fellow AfD frequenter, you will know that of all the meaningless academic trivia included on her page, that what they wanted to exclude was really ridiculous: that she says as an opening to her book, Killing Rage, "I am writing this essay sitting beside an anonymous white male that I long to murder". This may in itself be notable, but David Horowitz wrote about it in 100 Dangerous Professors, and it was written about on front page mag, and all the citations are given on the page. I would appreciate your help--I'm contending with some very difficult Marxists who are attached to her work, and think that they're defending the liberal cause, but really, they're just keeping out material that is very easily notable.-Kmaguir1 07:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. In the interest of disclosure, I'd like to inform you of a conduct RfC on Kmaguir1. It's here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kmaguir1. If you have time and are so inclined, feel free to provide comments there. Meanwhile, if you go to the bell hooks page, please do join in the discussion. If you read the Talk page and look at my and others' edit histories, you'll see that the picture is not quite as Kmaguir1 paints it. (I have no idea who the Marxists are he's referring to, and I've also edited his text for improvement, and left it in the article, vs. what he's saying here.)

Bottom line: welcome to bell hooks, be aware of the RfC, and feel free to join it. Cheers,--Anthony Krupp 17:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reality TV participants

It is worth mentioning that all American Idol participants have entries and that American Idol is a Fremantle Media production, the same company that produced The Complex.Ean 00:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Yager again

Thanks for the comments/advice on my talk page. I'm not familliar with the /ref tag, so if you could piont me towards the appropriate help file, I'd appreciate it. Also, any other help/advice you could give me. I'll try to do the footnoting as I find time, and learn how. Still have same question posted on the talk page: Is it OK to quote an article quoting myself? (Or is that too grey an area?) Terry Yager 20:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV & KV article

I'd like you to reply to why you think the article on Kaavya Vishwanathan, is written in fair POV. Please revert the article to NPOV unless you can explain it. --பராசக்தி 01:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Avrocar (aircraft)

You have now removed my "latest developments" comments about the connection to the Moller experimental flying saucers at least two times. What is the reason for the continued removal? I am not connected in any way with Moller International and am not making "marketing" testimonials for the company, as has been suggested. My personal interest in the subject of the Avrocar stems from research and writing that had been undertaken 1999-2001 based on an extensive collection of Avro Canada company documents obtained from researcher, the late Les Wilkinson. I have spent hundreds of hours interviewing significant designers, engineers and technicians involved in VTOL developments which have led to the publication of one book, many academic articles, screenplay research and consultation for four documentary films on the subject. Please respond otherwise I will consider the constant changing as vandalism. Bzuk 08:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avrocar continued...

Although you have equated the Moller reference to a dubious relevance, I believe that Dr. Moller was pursuing a similar design in his orginal experimental craft. I merely wished to provide readers with an appraisal that the buried ducted fan concept was not entirely abandoned. The fact that Moller did utilize a similar fan arrangement and saucer shape to later discard this premise is significant.

Even though I referred to original interviews, the published works refrenced in the article do collaborate on the Avrocar-Moller connection. I have further revised the Avrocar article so that readers will better understand the far-reaching R&D that John Frost was undertaking in the 1950s and 1960s.

Bzuk 19:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Yager mediation

Hello, I'm sorry it's been awhile, and I'm not sure if its a stale issue, but I recently agreed to mediate that case. Please either accept or reject me as a mediator there, and if you accept, please let me know if you would prefer public or private mediation. If it's a stale issue, just say so.

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Overlord List

I don't see any comments by you on Talk:Evil Overlord List. If you don't explain your reasoning there, I will remove the {{prod}} tag... AnonMoos 20:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from Deadasadodo

Thanks for the advice to me. I'm only a new Wikipedian and 13 so I've got a lot to learn. I was only aware of a couple of lines of the previous Dead famous article which you refer to, which I admittedly, did delete, but I did not see any other part of the article there may have been. I apologise for this and will remember your advice in the future.

Segway Geeks

Because of your outstanding contributions to Segway PT and/or Geek, you have been selected for the Wikipedia group Segway Geeks.

File:PTtopview.jpg

Geek ler^{a Segway Geek} 21:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... No. Uucp 21:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be dense

You've twice removed (an accurate) edit to the Larry the Lobster page and I don't understand why. (Or even if this is the way to discuss it with you.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.115.112.191 (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Harlem

You're doing a great job with it... thanks. It's good to know someone is looking out for Harlem.futurebird 04:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Muhammad Ali

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I remind you of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy for editors, which you appear to have violated at Muhammad Ali. You must not add negative statements to a biography without sourcing them. Thank you.. Also, please refrain from making changes until it can be discussed and agreed upon in the talk page, at WP:ANI and at WP:3RR. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the following --

* Neutral point of view Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong WP:NPOV violation; this was clerified in the following paragraph which you conveniently left out. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I amended it for you, because with your POV pushing, you left out key components. Let's do better next time, especially since the article must conform to WP:LIVING. Also, please read up on citing sources. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Muscle

You put {{prod}} on this article. But you should've provided the reason with {{prod}} template. The article needed some editing and it's been edited. Thank You NAHID 12:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the matter. But please notify ( {{subst:prodwarning|------}} ) the user when you put tag on any article.'Coz it might not be possible for a user to check his/her all articles at a time.It'll be helpful practise. Thank you NAHID 08:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:REFCO Logo.gif

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:REFCO Logo.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NAHID 08:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logo use is claimed, not generic fair use. Uucp 12:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Winn

Please read the talk page and respond before making any more reverts to the article page... Thanks --ProtectWomen 09:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harlem

twice now, you've reverted my edits, and i believe without merit. according to the wp:mos, references should follow the punctuation. if you dispute my interpretation, please make it known by opening up a discussion on the talk page. --emerson7 | Talk 21:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your obstinance is absolutely arresting and i am just stunned by your unwillingness to yield on this topic. you continue to state your opinion, even when faced with the text of the wp:mos AND centuries of precedence, you continue with this. please, help me to understand what i'm missing here. --emerson7 | Talk 21:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i just don't see how you could possibly come your conclusions even after explicit instructions to the contrary. 1) the <ref> tag and templates are flexible enough the adequately explain any ambiguity in your references. one can even go so far as to include the entire text of whatever is being clarified. 2) precedence is exactly what dictates the policy! wikipedia did not 'event' footnoting....the wp:mos is merely following standards that reach back before the invention of the movable type. check out either one of the books, "the chicago manual of style," or "strunk's the elements of style." both are excellent reference books no editor should be without.

all of the above notwithstanding, as i bang away here at my keyboard trying to reason with you, i see you have once again reverted my corrections. after completing this note on your talk page, i will ask you once again to stop. if you revert again, i will report you as being clearly and intentionally disruptive and for violation of the wp:3rr. --emerson7 | Talk 01:13, 24 March 2007 (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/Harlem, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Harlem.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]}

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 16:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Hi. I am a member of the Mediation Committee. Can I check whether you would still like to pursue this mediation? I note that there has been no discussion on Talk:Harlem for six days and there doesn't appear to be any dispute in the recent page history. If there are still issues that you feel mediation, please let me know and we can get underway.

Best wishes, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I have, of course, already contacted Emerson7 as well. Best wishes, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Emerson7 still has an issue with the current state of the page, so I'm going to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Harlem. Please come and discuss the issue there. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to summarise the dispute and to set out a course forwards. Could I ask you to make your comments there? Many thanks, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Harlem Edit

I thought that was odd, too. BTW as buildings are flying up south of 125th, west of Fifth, and east of Moningside, I've heard it called South Harlem. Is that real? or too soon to say? --Knulclunk 22:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you entirely on the neighborhood names. --Knulclunk 13:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Margo Howard-Howard

Uucp, your comments seem to suggest you don't believe that Margo was real . . . or do I misread you? Giachen 21:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New edits to Harlem

Nice. Magic Johnson Theatres has had a big impact too. Do you know what year? --Knulclunk 04:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Van Der Zee - Died in 1983? Well then someone should drop a line to the Studio Museum so they can fix their info! (page 3) --Knulclunk 02:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starter marriage

There is no truth in the statement that a starter marriage lasts less than 5 years and has no children. The definition originally given was not accurate, so I corrected it. You reverted it, suggesting my change was "bitter." It wasn't bitter, it was correct and substantiated by the source cited. Please do not revert it again, since doing so will be to provide readers with wrong information. Thank you. 209.247.22.164 13:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this if you wish

I'm dropping the same message on both of your talk pages.
Uucp, you've already made two reverts today. Link, you've made three.
Neither of you have posted a single word on the Larry the Lobster discussion page.
Please discuss it there. Or ignore me if you wish. Just a suggestion. Bladestorm 20:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

editorialization

That wasnt editorialization on the tyler hamilton page. He came out with statement saying he could be chymera. Why dont you check the facts before you start removing info.

C.Mulroney

I saw that you supported the Caroline Mulroney article a year ago. However, I have re-nominated it for deletion. Just letting you know.DDD DDD 11:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UUCP - Please reveal your identity

UUCP, I do not understand why people choose to communicate like masters and hide behind the psudonames.

Looks like you are used to marking thing under "editorialization". What was I editing? It is you who is doing that.

I happened to be the guy who delivered to Pointcast and know what went on. Who are you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunilsrivastava (talk • contribs) 06:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedic compilation of published work. It is not a forum for insiders to report their personal history on events. Take a look at the Wikipedia article on Original Research. If your inside knowledge has been documented and published, then the insights would be welcomed in Wikipedia, as long as they where delivered as a neutral explanation of facts. Statements like "Management That Did Not Keep Its Promises" are a little over the top. --Knulclunk 01:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UUCP - response to your comment on my talk page

You said: "We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to The Castro, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. Uucp 22:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)"

The changes I made to the Castro article were in response to biggotted vandalism that was already in place, although I agree that I should have only made a simple edit. It was also early in my use of Wikipedia and I have since refrained from such unconstructive conduct. Thanks for your insight. 216.38.135.218 19:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the hostile edit summary?

Hey, man, what's with the edit summary "Editor the other bob may not like it..." on the Don McLean article? I don't "not like it" -- I don't really care. I'm just trying to improve articles when they look like they could be improved -- that's not meant as a personal affront to anyone. If you disagree with the edit, revert the edit...I won't mind, because it's not my article. But calling me out in an edit summary -- to be frank, maybe it shouldn't have but it kinda pissed me off. So what's the deal, man, did I do something to tick you off that I don't know about? If so, I'm sorry -- but if not, please don't do that anymore. --TheOther Bob 18:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Prophet of Doom

An editor has nominated Prophet of Doom, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prophet of Doom and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter F. Paul

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Peter F. Paul. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits. I am considering mediating your case but i must ask that you and User:W1z4rd do not continue this edit war. I hope that a resolution can be found to this problem. I am considering mediating your case but i must ask that you and User:W1z4rd do not continue this edit war. I hope that a resolution can be found to this problem. Seddon69 (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MEDCAB case underway

I have accepted the MEDCAB case regarding Peter F. Paul for mediation. Please go to the case page at this link and note your acceptance of mediation and your acceptance of me as the MEDCAB mediator. -JodyB_talk 13:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter F. Paul case is closed at MEDCAB

I have summarily closed the Paul Medcab case due to a lack of activity by W1z4rd. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. JodyB_talk 13:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Manhattan African-Amerian History & Culture Guide, Museum of the City of New York

I have put a 'citation needed' to this reference (citation) in the article: "The Manhattan African-Amerian History & Culture Guide, Museum of the City of New York" in the Strivers' Row article. I can't find the publication listed anywhere. Not even in the Library of Congress which lists over fifty publications for the Museum of the City of New York. Someone needs to find out if it existed and its date of publication ! I have written to my Museum of the City of New York. You added this citation. Can you help with the citation ? Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thanks for your kind reply. Just the year of publication and the ISBN if they have it would be nice as an amplification. I am personally grateful and satisfied that you have the reference in hand. It would be nice if someone else could see the book in their library or university. Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Museum of the City of New York wrote me back and verified its existence but it was never copyrighted. It was a 22pp brochure they issued. -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why?

Why do you go around reverting things just because you don't like them? why do you act like a admin?--70.149.144.190 (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fluff reduction

Hi no thanks for cutting out all what you call fluff in the Underworld music section. Did you know that some people print Wikipedia articles to read them. For this reason, you can't just rely on the Wikilinks. Did you know that in writing we often "gloss" names and concepts to help readers. You may be familiar with Skinny Puppy and Lohner. However, a typical reader may not be. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heya...re: Ben Elton

Just thought I'd drop you an explanation as to why I killed it again. It's just way too unbalanced and is not reflective of what the public perception of Ben Elton is. Keep in mind there's only one sentence about his awards yet, even with that cull, a paragraph and a bit about why people don't like him. I only chose those criticisms because I thought they were most appropriate and reflective of what others had said. Feel free to drop me a note but in the meantime I might try and find some more praise so we can get it balanced. Cheers RutgerH (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astor Row

Hi, nice article. What is meant by "speculative townhouses?" Ones that were built for prospective renters rather than for committed buyers? Kaisershatner (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you edited a page on my watchlist (Gettysburg Address?) and I looked at your user page, saw some interesting articles, and read on. Thanks for your note- Kaisershatner (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from Kuvaputki

Hello Uucp, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Kuvaputki has been removed. It was removed by 93.182.138.10 with the following edit summary '(removed proposal for deletion, see discussion page)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 93.182.138.10 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

May I ask?

Regarding John Corcoran (author), out of curiosity why wasn't this article sourced with third party references? I found a plethora but find it strange wikipedia would allow to let that stick with out proper sourcing. There wasn't a issue with the info just the lack of sources could make the page appear to be advertising when it is for a rather notable person, especially when the only link is to their own personal business' site. Not jumping you so please don't take it that way. Just wanted to know if it was an oversight or something.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious not raising an issue, I happened to see him speak almost ten years ago at a school of mine so I was curious and like I said just a tad surprised there hadn't been more on there. Other then adding a few sources and formatting it's still your work so you are the one who did the good job.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Today's featured picture

Today's featured picture, currently on the main page, contains content that you added in 2005.[2] The text in question lacks inline citations. At the time, you listed your sole reference as The Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, R. Milner, ed.. Is it safe to assume that this reference supports the claim that the work was criticized because it depicted "Americans being chaotic and lazy and Jews being greedy." If so, let me know. If not, let me know where I can find it so we can add references. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. Viriditas (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Michael P. Fay

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Michael P. Fay. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael P. Fay. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

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

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

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

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Harlem. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award.
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

♠TomasBat 01:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bumpy Johnson

Per this, I thought you might like to check out the improvements to the Bumpy Johnson article. Among other things, I source his nickname and added a photo. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Mcastle2003.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Mcastle2003.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

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

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Apollo Theater.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Apollo Theater.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 16:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Discussion at WP:ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#24 Game regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DR/N

The DR/N is still active. Since you have claimed the dispute has not been resolved and expressed a desire to resurrect the DR/N I wanted to let you know you may comment there now.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Harlem map.png

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

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

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Astor row.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Astor row.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 23:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Chas Lee for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chas Lee is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chas Lee until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lion Brewery New York for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lion Brewery New York is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lion Brewery New York until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelby Davis

Please only use one bolded !vote in an AfD discussion. I have edited your responses in this AfD to remove the duplicate !votes. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dunning–Kruger effect

Did you coin the term "Dunning–Kruger", as was suggested here? If so that's amazing! Schierbecker (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. I first used the term on Wikipedia in 2005, as that article suggests. I had posted a definition several years earlier (October 11, 2002) at Everything2 (https://everything2.com/title/Dunning-Kruger+Effect). I had probably read about the original (1999) Dunning-Kruger research in New Scientist or Science Magazine. I remember finding it hilarious and telling people about it at work. Uucp (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Famous (Novel)

I came to the above page on a redirect from "Boris Pecker" but could find nothing about him. I left a query on the talk page in 2020. Please see my note on the talk page for Dead Famous. As no-one has taken up my query I have put in a request for discussion and deletion of the redirect .If there is a connection I would be happy for the redirect to remain if this was explained in the article Spinney Hill (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Church of the nazareth.jpg

Hi! I added an information template to this and 2 other photos. The photo is in use in bg:Харлем (Ню Йорк). I assume you are Stern. If not please fix. --MGA73 (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Porn 'n Chicken for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Porn 'n Chicken, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porn 'n Chicken (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pamela Paul, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David French. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ abc

[1] ^ abc

[1]