User talk:Duncan

Duncan (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

	This user is not an administrator, and has no administrator privileges. He sure does wish, but that's another story... Ahem. If you are under the impression that I am being rogue, or that I blocked you, unblocked someone, deleted an article or image, protected, unprotected, or salted an article, or are just about to ask me to do one of those things, please note that I'm not a sysop. If you want to know why you were blocked, check your block log. Go here and enter your (or, someone else's) username in the User: box and click "Go". There, you can see the name of the admin that blocked you and the reason for the block.
Please do not ask me why your page/file was deleted. Just check the deletion log (here: add the article/file name in the Title: box), click "Go", and you will find a reason, as well as the username for the deleting administrator.

This is Duncan's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Archives

Archive 1 (22 January 2008 - 25 September 2008) Archive 2 (25 September 2008 - 19 November 2008) Archive 3 (19 November 2008 - 5 February 2009) Archive 4 (5 February - 27 February 2009) Archive 5 (27 February - 4 July 2009) Archive 6 (4 July 2009 - 30 November 2009)

on the talk page and summary, i stated why this article shouldnt be deleted. please talk about it on the talk page before you consider having it deleted.--Cman7792 (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not place your signature in the headings. I have read your arguments and still believe that it fails WP:NF as it doesn't have any real plot here. You can't use Google as a source, and why in the world would a reader of our encyclopedia have to Google your movie in order to find a source? We believe in in-line citations here. Now, I hope not to come across as uncivil or BITE-ey, but please read these guidelines before introducing an article into the mainspace; it covers some of the things an article should include before making it "live." You are free to participate in the AfD for that article. At this time, it is up to the community to decide. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 03:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dear Duncan/ESanchez013, thanks for the help, now i'm totally new to wiki and wikipedia, so please help me with that consent letter. i should write to system3 that they should write a letter to wikipedia, right? what license should they use? they created the game but screenshots are different product. 217.150.130.180 (talk) 12:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here an admin said that He will need to formally license the image, following the format at WP:CONSENT. but fair-use says Regardless of copyright, screenshots may still be legally used under the principle of fair use in the U.S. or fair dealing and similar laws in other countries. Do we need to email that guy again apart the email we already got? --phpmoli 17:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I guess we can upload it under fair use. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 07:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, what's the procedure, do we need to make a request again or can we alter the previous request? --phpmoli 13:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{adminhelp}} this is pointless. you can upload any copyrighted text but not fair-use images? i had massive enthusiasm to help edit wikipedia, i even read nearly all help pages. all i got now is a huge wait sign blinking that i'm waiting for years to give go. no. i stop. it was useless and pointless to create an account. i deeply sorry for the time i've spent with wikipedia. admins read this as you were took part in this --phpmoli 15:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I am sorry you decided to leave, and if you think your short experience here was full of being bitten. However, you must understand that I could not swiftly respond to your inquiry, as I am rather busy in real-life; any other person at WP:FFU could've helped, or using the {{helpme}} on your own talk page. Don't always expect a fast response. To answer your question, if you ever decide to return, no, you do not need a new request to upload a fair use image if you have a registered account; yes, you need a new request if you do not have an account and are using your IP address to make a request. Farewell. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 22:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My morning coffee hasn't kicked in yet. Good catch! Daniel Case (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious sock of User:Editor XXV. That guy has a rather bizarre modus operandi: tagging his own socks immediately after creating them, for instance. Not banned yet, but I'm working on it. --Decepticon Shockwave, signing off. (talk) (contributions) 13:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and this one was a sleeper. My guess is he was trying to wait out the 4-day limit before you can become autoconfirmed, but got impatient. --Decepticon Shockwave, signing off. (talk) (contributions) 13:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a guy. Well, I'm sure he has more sleepers somewhere; I think after this, we have enough to take him to AIV or request a CU on his accounts. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There already was a CU. (Came out positive, shocking, I know.) Unfortunately, he's operating from a dynamic IP, and the range he cycles through is huge and can only be blocked for a short time. I'm trying to get him community banned. --Decepticon Shockwave, signing off. (talk) (contributions) 13:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, bugger, I missed him again. Thanks for the revert, Duncan. It's always nice to know one's a sockpuppeteer. xD Is there any way I can help with the community ban? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently a discussion on WP:ANI#User:Editor XXV; I'm sure we could give our opinion in the matter there. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 00:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already commented. May I say how much I hate AN/I as I told xeno here? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm on a MiFi card and it takes me forever to load that page. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 00:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ow. It took me a while even with a proper, wired connection. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I get it instantly. --Decepticon Shockwave, signing off. (talk) (contributions) 18:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, it varies every time I go there. (shrugs) Maybe I just have too many windows open. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I also have a slow machine (Vista) on top of it all, so I don't always get it instantly. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 23:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You bought Vista? Excuse me while I facepalm. (facepalm) There, all done. :P --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Yes. The whole Aero and window-flip (plus the insistent salesperson) made it seem oh-so-very cool. But, I have learned my lesson: do not buy hastily-coded operating systems. Windows 7, anyone? :P —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 00:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard mixed on that. I actually asked for my new PC specifically to not have Vista. xD Of course, the XP was stolen and the shop has closed. (rageface) --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll wait just a few more months and I may cave :-D. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 06:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(looks at your page history) ... err... what the hell was that IP's poetry about? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 11:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was mad that I removed his copy-paste lyrics of the Fresh Prince of Bel Air on 15lsoucy's talk page. So, he came on here and (I guess, trying to prove something?) pasted them here. He's blocked now. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 20:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPs... they scare me sometimes... --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. They are stalkers. :-P —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 01:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you need to update your userpage. The infobox down the right still labels you as E. Sánchez. Secondly, is the picture/text wrong or does my screen need adjusting badly? You say you're white and hispanic but (alters screen setting slightly) the picture looks a lot like an African American. (is very confused) --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair my real name is E. Sánchez. And I am white race, and of Hispanic ethnicity (White Hispanic and Latino Americans). I think it's my over-grown hair, but that's me in the picture. :-D —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 23:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't considered it was your actual name. (facepalm) Oh, well, then. Guess I need to alter my screen. O.o --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

=] Yeah, that's me! lol Yeah, Duncan is my late teacher's name; he was awesome. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 00:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand that the WP:COI rules would still apply, regardless of username. Could you kindly approve the change in my user name from cecn to funshine? Cecn (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello; because I am not a bureaucrat, I am unable to approve or decline the change or usurpation of a username. Taking a look here, I notice that the usurpation was declined because you did not reply in time to my question. You must make some type of response within seven (7) days from the time another bureaucrat or clerk makes a remark or asks for feedback; otherwise, as has happened to you, the request will be denied. Feel free to start another request, but make sure that you constantly visit the requests page. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 20:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was quite amusing Is it a template? ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 02:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, just a sarcastic way to release my fury :-D. But, if I can find someone around here to help me learn parser functions, I just may make one! Cheers, —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 07:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bringing in back info. Some other contributors erased tons of info. give me 5 minutes, before warning.94.210.222.154 (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-huh. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 08:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was wondering if you come by again and help me, since he is once again slowly re adding everything back to the article even though I have tried explaining to him what is wrong with is sources. I don't mind people trying to improve the article, but I also don't want the article to turn into the massive mess it was before. Ridernyc (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, let me see if I can clear it up a bit for him. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 07:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that what you say there is accurate. There is a difference between retiring and vanishing. --Dweller (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Dweller's right. We do rename accounts that are exercising their right to vanish (see WP:RTV). Thanks, @Kate (parlez) 20:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am sorry about that; I think I did confuse the two. Feel free to remove my note on the request, so as to not create confusion. Thanks. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 05:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) I do not like that you reverted me on two distinct articles, both times without talk page dialog. I feel offended by that and am wondering if you intended to avoid dialog with me? If not, please reply on the talk pages of Enchanted_(film) and Medieval Warm Period.

2) I have been admonished [1] (unfairly I feel) that my prior comment here to you, (which I attempted to repost after a reversion [2]) rises to a level of vandalisim. I reject that categorization, but I respect the right of your peer to make it. That said, I'd prefer if you'd dialog with prior to reverting me. I watch the talk pages of the articles I edit and I am prompt to reply to any dialog on those talk pages.

Please let me know if I can expect dialog from you on the respective talk pages of the two articles I've mentioned. I'll look for your reply, here, on your talk page. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, welcome aboard Wikipedia. Just a heads up: I received this message after I reverted 216.153.214.89: notice: that is NOT the way to introduce a citation. Please use the <ref> tags to make your edits. Please see WP:Your first article for more information here).

My peer editor reverted your edit possibly because of the way you introduced your message (get a grip, jeez louise, etc.). We of course assume good faith to the furthest extent possible under this policy, but, as all humans, we are bound to make mistakes once in a while. Your edits have been reverted because they do not conform to the manual of style as in Enchanted (film) and removal of references in Medieval Warm Period. We do not try to push you away, but would invite you to become familiarized with the editing procedures. It's nothing that can't be fixed, so you didn't mess up anything, really.

I am confused as to why, however, you are feeling bitten, as you seem to have been around at least a year (based on your message on your talk page); nevertheless, we don't want to push you away, and hope you understand what we are doing isn't anything malevolent. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 05:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - your speedy revert of my 1st edit to Enchanted (film) was, as evidenced by the edit summary, groundless. My article edit was NOT "spam" and it was flippant and cavalier of you to call it that. Do you disagree? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that is was "groundless." The way you introduced the link was not the correct way to do so. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 05:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please go back and re-read your edit summary of your 1st revert of my article edit. You called my edit "spam". I think that characterization is flat out wrong and if that was your rationale for your 1st revert, then your 1st revert was indeed groundless. As to your 2nd revert, that was needless as you simply could have FIXED the link technique in my edit, rather than reverting the post. If your aim was to eliminate my content addition, you prevailed. But, if your aim is to tell the truth in your edit summary, then in the 1st instance, you did not do so well - at least not if your current rationale about the way I "introduced the link" is wrong. That 2nd edit summary makes it sound sounds like coaching could help. I am wondering - is calling my edit "spam" your method of coaching? If not, what am I missing here? Where is the "spam" in my article edit? And if there is none, why did you call it that in your edit 1st summary? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, your point has been made; I screwed up. How would you like me to proceed now? —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 06:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for conceding error. As an act of contrition, you can restore my edit to Enchanted (film) and correct the techical aspect of my post to your satisfaction. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such corrections have been made by an uninvolved, third party. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 13:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what is wrong with it???

It is

1. A port
2. A city
3. An important Soviet era location
4. In the Arctic
5. contains a military base

!!!

76.66.201.20 (talk) 13:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProjects have not listed the article for inclusion; if I'm not mistaken, they must "adopt" the article first. But, I don't know. My edits have been reverted. I don't feel like asking around right now. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 13:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never encountered a Wikiproject that operated that way. And even if it wasn't the case, why did I get an edit warning for it? 76.66.201.20 (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not a "warning," it was a notice. It looked to me like you were testing, so I assumed good faith and let you know your test worked, and it had been removed. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 13:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is a warning, it's the {{uw-test1}} user warning template. 76.66.201.20 (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note your edit summary Reverted 3 edits by 76.66.201.20 identified as vandalism to last revision by Snowbot. using TW 76.66.201.20 (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fine, it's a warning. But since warnings are all the same to you, I'll just use {{uw-test4}} next time. Forget using the lowest level possible of "warnings", assuming good faith and not trying to bite every anonymous IP that shows up here enforcing the "rules". edit conflict Yeah, that message edit summary was produced by Twinkle; I can't help that. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 13:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't see why it merits a uw-template in the first place. You could just have reverted my edits without using the uw-template. As the edit summary shows up as a "vandalism" message, isn't there some other button on Twinkle to use? 76.66.201.20 (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, the TW auto message violates WP:AGF now that you've mentioned that... Time to contact the TW developer to add a different message to it, perhaps? 76.66.201.20 (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the benefit of reverting (what I thought, at the time, were) test edits and not letting the tester know of what happened; that way, they don't show up six days later and are all, like, "where are my edits?" On Twinkle, I believe all templates, even your good faith ones, are preceded with "uw-". And, yes, there's the "REVERT (good faith)" link, which I maybe should've pushed, but somehow, someway, maybe even accidentally, didn't. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 13:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so perhaps Twinkle needs a "revert, good faith with message to editor" button then? 76.66.201.20 (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, we have that "good faith revert" link already. It is up to the Twinkle end-user what to use, which level, and which template. I stand by my decision to use a level-1 template, as it is the most basic notice still assuming some type of good faith. There's level-2 for non-AGF, level-3 for obvious disruption after level-2, and level-4 and -4im for more-serious vandalism. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 14:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find it is you adding unsourced information and not addding the sources to back it up. For one your adding a link to "Acting Head Teacher" that does not exist. 92.11.1.73 (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't watch the show, and at this point I think you are unfamiliar with our policies; WP:SOURCE-check that out. How about WP:NOR? Oh, and let's not forget WP:CITE, and WP:AGF, oh, and my favorite WP:CRYSTAL. Anything else you would like me to do? Because, no, I don't really care that you watch the show, as your edit summary states. And, no, you will not be blatantly disrespectful towards me when all I'm doing is trying to get you to find sources to cite what you're changing. We need sources, not someone saying, "Oh, well I watched it last night and this happened." That's called original research and we don't allow that here. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 16:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I explained the edit in the discussion section. The whole section is not "constructive" the the topic of rivalry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.181.82 (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please post all new comments to the very bottom of my talk page. Your edits were reverted over a month ago. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 01:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to Mainframe, six references does not work and one reference is not about mainframes. Why claim something for mainframe that it does not have and used servers as a references? Would it make sense to you if I write an article about cats and use plastic as a reference?

Do not just revert the edit just because you know the Wikipedia rules. Reverting edits does not fix the problem, it just takes you back to the problem. If you're a smart guy, read it first, then take the time to improve it!. --68.192.34.9 (talk) 10:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing the bold letters were supposed to somehow admonish me? Lookey here, the whole point behind me undoing stuff is because you may be getting rid of old links, but somehow haven't understood my point: "deleting references is against our license." Okay, so maybe articles about kitties shouldn't have sources from plastic, but why don't you just get rid of the "plastic" sources, and leave dead links there and mark them with {{dead link}}? So, here's a summary of what an editor did after you reverted:

• 06:28, 28 December 2009 TreyGeek (talk | contribs) (24,948 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 68.192.34.9; Not all edits are appropriate. Parties should discuss the edits on the talk page.. (TW)) (undo)

(cur) (prev)

• 05:07, 28 December 2009 68.192.34.9 (talk) (23,177 bytes) (Undid revision 334424680 by Duncan (talk)Improvedthe article. DO NOT undo unless you are an expert in mainframe.) (undo)

(cur) (prev)

• 20:40, 27 December 2009 Duncan (talk | contribs) m (24,948 bytes) (Rv 68.192.34.9: then add "dead link" next to them; if you remove the references, you are breaking the GFDL/CC-BY-SA-3.0 and WP:CITE) (undo)

So, "you're a smart guy." There's a request for you to go and discuss your edits at the article talk page. I suggest hitting "edit this page" there first. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 00:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: look at how nice User:TreyGeek was! He updated the dead links to good links for us! " 06:45, 28 December 2009 TreyGeek (talk | contribs) m (24,886 bytes) (updated references. Dead links that were of concern lead to appropriate articles/pages now.) (undo)" —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 00:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment over at User talk:Master S P. Would you mind taking another look at the situation to see if your uw-vandalism4im was actually appropriate? Thanks, — Scientizzle 21:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: follow-up 1, follow-up 2...just FYI. — Scientizzle 21:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after evaluation, I think I jumped the gun a bit there. Sorry. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 00:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan, you've accused me of adding "unsourced or original content", but you are completely wrong! Please check accusations against the facts! There were four sources for two lines of information. Now there are five sources, that's usually more than enough for two uncontroversial lines simply describing a movie. The facts is that the anatomist guys act as if they own Wikipedia, while I'm trying to make it a useful and welcoming place not just for academic scholars, and they seem to hate that. --Minutae (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply has been provided at the user's talk page.

I can't see any explanation of this in the discussion page. Are you sure about this because ABB claim to be first and we should contact KUKA to ask their timeline. Please can you reply on the discussion page. It is so lonely no-one ever posts there...... Robotics1 (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Robotics1! I am unable to find the article that you requested above. Is there something you need changed? Can you give me a link to the article so that I can see to what you are referring? Thanks! —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 17:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that Timbaland should have that credit because he DID sing in 4 Minutes. Also, with I Get Paper no one would go to the talk page, I kept removing that template because I thought that would make you go there. I mean no harm to Wikipedia and you're accusations are very insulting to me. I think you're being a little bit harsh. 206.45.0.225 (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page won't be read for articles listed for consensus deletion (or AFD). That's only for speedy-deletion articles bearing the {{hangon}} tag. I replied to your comment at RP459's talk page, and just to review, you need to visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Get Paper to comment on the deletion. The talk page isn't quite the place to go.

As for the Timbaland comment, I understand that the items you are adding mean no harm, and I will assume good faith, but I must ask that you follow the guidelines. If he did sing it, that's fine, but you need to get consensus before adding it. Do so by posting on the talk page. Please let me know if I can help further. —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 02:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you caught 189.93.139.215 doing some linkspam. I figured I'd give you a heads-up - I caught 189.93.129.98 doing the exact same thing less than a week ago. The edits and pages are identical, so I'm pretty sure it's the same person adding the links. The problem is that, according to the whois report, both IPs are governed by the same ISP, under 189.92.0.0/14. A /14 is way too large to block without causing significant collateral damage. That's why I'm giving you this heads-up - I need you to be able to quickly recognize and deal with this person the next time they decide to start spamming. Two people who are aware of a vandal's pattern are better than one.

By the way, the sig on your editnotice is outdated. —LedgendGamer 04:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that. I'll add these two guys to my RS Feed. I'll look around for that.

Haha! I knew I missed a page somewhere; updating now... thx! —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 04:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:RedandBlueEPCover.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 08:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your userpage and thought you should deserve this. You may put this on your page.Jhenderson777 (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Userpage Barnstar
		For having a great userpage and for requesting to help other people's userpages. I give you this. Jhenderson777 (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much!! I'll transport the code right over there now! :D —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 01:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Admin Coaching has been removed from the request list, as requests where the submitter has not visited the page for at least 6 months (or been inactive for at least 4 months) are removed. You are welcome to re-submit a request should you wish to, but please note that you are expected to regularly check the page (and to update the "last visited" field of your request) to show your continued interest in the project. If you do re-submit, please carefully re-read the instructions for submission as they may have changed since you last visited! As noted on the project page, there is an on-going backlog with the project, as so few admins are currently coaching. This means that you may have a long wait for a response (if you receive one at all). If you no longer require admin coaching, I hope that you continue to enjoy editing Wikipedia! Regards,   — Jeff G. ツ 05:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Citibankold.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. Cloudbound (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Duncan for welcoming me graciously to Wikipedia. I am somewhat new to this wiki-editing, however, Mr. Ron Shapiro (the page I had attempted to edit) has requested that I update his wikipedia page. Before I continue editing, I'd like to know what the proper protocal is to properly edit a page without violating the wikipedia terms of service. I apologize for any previous violations of the terms and would like your help in properly updating Mr. Shapiro's page. I look forward to working with you in enhancing the wikipedia experience for those curious about Mr. Shapiro and his work. Thank you very much for your help.Rbrodsky87 (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: a reply to your inquiry has been included at your talk page, Rbrodsky87. {{adminhelp}}

Hello, admin(s). I encountered what I thought was spam at the Robert M. Shapiro Ronald M. Shapiro article a couple of days ago, and reverted the user above. He has edited the article continuously and has expressed both in the edit summaries and above that he has been asked by the subject of the article to "update" it. I know this is a WP:COI, and he seems to have good intentions, and I know we can't prevent him from editing, but would like to know what's a good way to approach him about it. Thank you. —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 20:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just ask him if he understands the whole COI deal, and if he's OK with it and agrees to remain neutral, cite reliable sources, etc. no harm done. —fetch·comms 20:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point him to WP:BLP/H which will be useful if he thinks there is a serious problem, and WP:BESTCOI is useful. He's doing the right thing by asking: if his edits are reverted, or if he is in doubt, best thing for him to do is propose them on the talk page and see if he can get a WP:Consensus. JohnCD (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Duncan, I'm Airplaneman. I undid your reversion to Fuck It (I Don't Want You Back). Please see the edit summary I left. Cheers! Airplaneman ✈ 00:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-oh! Oops! I didn't notice that was in there when I did the reversion; sorry about that. :-) —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 00:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK :). Nice to meet you, Airplaneman ✈ 00:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xeno^talk 22:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I was charmed to read your Computer User listing. I started it (Dale Archibald) in 1982, and sold it in 1984 to MSP. Diane was in sales, but never was Sales Manager until it was taken over by them. Don Spink and Ed Conyers were ad salesmen in the early days, to give them their due. I still have paper copies of the ones I was responsible for, and have a book of some of the early articles, "Dale Archibald's Using Computers." Anyway, thanks. If I can add more, you can email me at dale662 here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dale662 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dale. I'm glad you enjoyed reading our article on Computer User, but I must say, I can't take all the credit. :-) Yes, you are welcome to add as much stuff as you'd like to the article, as long as 1) it's verifiable, free content, and 2) it adheres to our neutral point of view policy. I know, sometimes, being too closely-related to the article's subject can make it hard to remain neutral, but we must try. Be sure to ask if you need any help. Thanks for your contributions! —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 16:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I posted an edit on the AEHS article that was rolled back as "biased". I honestly have no idea why, as it was plain statistics, with the exception of noting that their teachers:students ratio was exceptional, which it was (compared to state and country averages). I don't live in the same country as that school, and had never heard of it before today, so I guarantee you I don't have a bias. Sellyminime (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. :-) Yes, I think I only reverted due to (not the fact it's 4 AM and I am zombie-editing) the word "exceptional," which is not consistent with our neutrality policy. We cannot say "exceptional," but perhaps, "one of the lowest in the state," etc. Catch my drift? :-D Happy editing! —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 10:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay then. Thanks for telling me! I have spent about 4 years on WIkipedia without editing and only really started yesterday, so I've probably seen a lot of stuff that shouldn't be there, but I didn't know that yet. I'll fix it :) Sellyminime (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your message on User talk:Jcimpric was not appropriate. This appears to be an expert on the topic, inexperienced on Wikipedia. A block threat is not a correct way to handle unreferenced additions anyway, and references have been supplied. I'm watcing the page and will deal with it. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat convinced that he is the same as this person, and that's how that happened. But, true, you're right about WP:BITE. I will WP:TROUT myself. :) —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 10:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, same person I would say. I'll look at real algebraic geometry later and will try to sort out the content. Probably a rewrite is going on. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 20:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we seem to have conflicted with each other in reviewing this submission. I'm curious as to why you thought it should be declined? It seems to be well referenced and notable under GNG and ANYBIO. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 22:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually thought someone had declined it and a vandal just made the template seem as if it were accepted. My next thought was to move the article, but you came along. :-) —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 22:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, alright, no worries. It was declined a while ago, but that was undone and the user who tried to decline it has since been blocked as a sock. Thanks. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 22:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am writing to provide additional information regarding my article that you have declined. I thought it is well referenced and it is notable because: (1) Adeptia has been selected an important software provider and written about by Gartner, the premier and independent IT analyst firm, (2) There are other interviews and spotlights for this company and (3) Adeptia has also been referenced in this Wikipedia article: Comparison of business integration software. Please note that on this page many other companies in the IT industry have Wikipedia articles but they are arguably much less referenced (or no sources) and are less notable (see Altova, Jitterbit, Apache Synapse, OpenESB etc.) . Could it be that you are applying a different, higher and possibly unfair standard of notability to my article than was applied by other reviewers to these articles?

I believe Wikipedia is becoming a very important source of detailed and unbiased source of technology comparison and research information for business people thanks to contributions by expert users. A too restrictive and tight policy that prevents upcoming and notable companies from being represented will be a disservice to Wikipedia users. I would also add that notability is contextual, meaning a technology company being selected by Gartner is EQUALLY NOTABLE as a politician being endorsed by New York Times or a restaurant being mentioned in Time or a researcher being published by IEEE. Since Wikipedia applies to all types of information and not just popular culture, we cannot apply same standard of notability to all articles. Duncan, I hope you will reconsider and approve my article. This is my first article and I am trying to be a good citizen and intend to contribute to enrich Wikipedia further. Dsexpert (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I declined the article (not "your," but "the") because it doesn't really explain why the company is notable; in other words, the article says, "this is company X. We do this and that." Also, the fact it was noted as "cool" does not make it any more notable. As a piece of advice, don't use the "but there's other less-notable stuff" card; please read that, as it explains why this isn't a good defense.

Thanks for your contributions; we really appreciate them. However, please remember we do have to hold articles to our notability guidelines, regardless of subject (we have guidelines for almost everything!) Thank you, also, for understanding that. —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 05:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Duncan,

I was wondering why you declined my article (Pieter Breugem)? Your review didn't give me any advice or any constructive criticism at all. I find it extremely irritating that a person who has NO insight into a certain subject have the right or the power to approve or decline articles. Mr Breugem is most probably the most renowned Horticulturalist in the Southern Hemisphere. He is responsible for one of the most (if not the most) important horticultural cases in the world. The court case was a ground breaker world wide. Because of him and his book hundreds of people/companies have been caught extorting millions of dollars (US Dollars) out of horticulturists and horticultural companies world wide by claiming royalty rights on different plants.

You declined my article with enough sources but you accepted the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._Armstrong, is that because you are the author? I think so. As far as I am concerned, you are abusing your power.

Kind Regards

Johnny Drama 8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Drama 8 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As a first rule, please remember to sign your contributions to my talk page and others by using four tildes ~~~~.

Secondly, that article (John S. Armstrong) was not approved, but simply written. I am the original author, and it complies with notability guidelines because he was a co-founder of a major community of a metropolitan city, and the founder of a city. The article you were trying to submit 1) does not include reputable third-party sources, 2) does not comply with neutrality guidelines (it is written in a biased tone), and 3) it seems to be written only to promote this person. Please go ahead and feel free to fix those items.

I don't have any more power than you do. Feel free to start helping out at the articles for creation center. If you didn't agree, you did the right thing by re-nominating it. I'll allow another one of our volunteers to review your submission. Thank you for your understanding. —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 04:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Since you have an account, it isn't necessary for you to use the AFC system; it's geared towards those without an account. Please draft an article using your own namespace (see WP:SUBPAGES) and then just move it into the mainspace when it's ready. —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 05:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy Birthday	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing Duncan a very happy birthday on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Don't forget to save us all a piece of cake!

Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Armbrust! ...and fellow WP:BDAY members! —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 00:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note; for things like this, please blank the article using {{Afc cleared}} if it's confirmed to be a copyvio. Also, please change the "cv-bot" parameter to just "cv", as that indicates it has been confirmed as a cv. Thanks! —fetch·comms 22:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You got it! :D. Thanks! —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 22:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up, I reversed your decline on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/face2face. Reasoning is on the article. The user came on IRC confused, so I put a little sense into the comments. Happy editing, -- DQ (t) (e) 17:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No biggie. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yeah! Thanks, Orangemike! See you around! —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 00:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Duncan, this is someting i put on 2's talk page about my article on hold... please let me know what you think.

Hello again Mr 2... I have read what you said on the article, i dont know how but i forgot to put my main source that he has developed courses at IU, this is the [source here] ... if i added this source does it make him notable enough, and not to mention, he is ALREADY listed on en.wiki as a [Current notable faculty] ... Please review and advise before i waste time and submit my article again, I will also send this to the other person who looked at it today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Andy_Hollinden
Elika2010 (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completed the editing of the page while it was in the "declined" state. I added a note that the article now has 2 more references before submitting it.

Al-Andalusi (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Duncan; i fear i have to disagree with your edit summary here: The location of the host might seem a good guide to public domain status, but if you look here you'll see that All of the material available from the PMC site is provided by the respective publishers or authors. Almost all of it is protected by U.S. and/or foreign copyright laws, even though PMC provides free access to it. Since the subject of the copied obit died in 1965 i very much doubt that it can be public domain. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 16:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that link was listed under "disruptive". Really. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, no worries here. —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 21:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Duncan! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

As you may know, the Counter-Vandalism unit is inactive. So for reviving the WikiProject, we will need to sort out the members. So if you are active, please put your username at the bottom of the list at Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit#Sort out the members.

You are receiving this message as a current member of the CVU.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Counter-Vandalism Unit at 00:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC). Redirected here from User talk:ESanchez013.[reply]

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help! Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently the are 1442 submissions waiting to be reviewed. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog.

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation is backlogged and needs YOUR help! Articles for Creation is desperately in need of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors and administrators alike, to help us clear a record backlog of pending submissions. There is currently a significant backlog of 1442 submissions waiting to be reviewed. These submissions are generally from new editors who have never edited Wikipedia before. A prompt, constructive review of submissions could significantly editor retention. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you (at least) autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. Click here to review to a random submissionArticle selected by erwin85's random article script on toolserver. We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 1 or 2 reviews, would be extremely beneficial. On behalf of the Articles for Creation project, AndrewN talk 23:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation urgently needs YOUR help! Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1442 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. PS: we have a great AFC helper script at User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js which helps in reviewing in just few edits easily! We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 2 or 3 reviews, it would be extremely beneficial. On behalf of the Articles for Creation project, TheSpecialUser TSU

I did mention reason for change in Persecution Of Hindus article. please check it.Also it is supposed to be persecution of Hindus article , please see the changes and read the references 1)Non Hindus are given special rights in Indian Constitution(Article 21-32) 2)North East India subsection:Non Hindus unable to perform Durga Puja LOL, only Hindus perform Durga puja 3)Kerala Section: Love Jihad is allegedly supposed by Muslims against non Muslims. Hindus are 56% of total population. Just look at the so called references and the article, there is a heavy mismatch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.130.55 (talk) 09:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a gross mismatch between the references quoted and the actual article. please look into this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.130.55 (talk) 09:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not go back and insert stuff in messages you already wrote; just start a new level. WP:FINE, keep editing. I'll let another user more familiar with the article help you. Good night. —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 09:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for reviewing this page. I knew it would not pass, but there were other issues before with a colliding page that someone else had made and I got major confused (results in a meat puppetry write-up between three reviewers who ganged up, and a bullying complaint for one announcing he will make sure my stuff won't pass and getting retaliatory, not all reviewers are of quality, some seem to have personal issues with content and don't have the wisdom to recluse themselves from it but try to destroy it where they see it). This way I have now a clean platform to work off, thanks again for your time and effort :-)

Mike (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I did check, especially since there is a nice summary in wikipedia:vrs. Now the problem with Internet influential individuals is that there is not always coverage in print media.
I looked at the Jenna Marbles page, and both references that are reliable sources would not apply there either: both do not center on her and are 'also' passing mentions, one is an interview of hers, so her own words.
With this I want by no means to ask to take Jenna Marble's page down.
However, some misguided individual reviewer does lead a war against everything household hacker.
With the Internet influencers, other measures need to be taken into account: HouseholdHacker: currently stable place 60 as top producer and has been with the top 100 earners of over 20,000 YouTube partners.
Jenna Marbles is at place 27, also within the 100 top earners of about 20,000 .
Matthew's role as a major influencer is to having turned around the channel that started losing by being part leader of a trend: people are listening to him, which is expressed in scores like Kred and Klout who are measuring real influence on the Internet.
Also, the Jenna Marbles article is of course full of anectodal things, written like a story and not really like an encyclopedia article.

Are we measuring here with two measures.... ?

The guys of HouseholdHacker, Matthew is one of them, and there are two references of the same quality as are on the Jenna Marbles page, do merit a person page too.

This page here has been hacked up by that individual who is very obviously leading a personal war against HouseholdHacker. The proof is that he has never edited out anything similar (identical in quality) from the Jenna Marbles page. Yes, some things do sound like puffery, but we can work on it, a summary delete is probably not the right answer, and again, I do compare both pages and see the same reasons would apply to delete most of the Jenna Marbles page, however I would not advocate this in any way, shape or form.

I agree entirely that by the form the notability requirement is not fulfilled for Justin Matthew, as it is not for Jenna Marbles, or for many other artists and persons on Wikipedia.
It says also 'break the rules'. Some things in the new technology are not ever covered in the 'reputable' media. That's why they are disappearing. There are new measures coming up that divide with mathematical crispness between real influencers and 'just mass posters'.

Would you be so kind to comment, and compare just these two pages for yourself.

I did not add a link yet to Justin Matthew in the HouseholdHacker page, not until the page is at least accepted with flags (which need then of course applied in equal measure to all similar pages, similar in references provided and content.

Would it be acceptable to move the page to the main space, so I can add a talk page to it, and maybe other people can then chime in to this discussion? Maybe sometimes we need to break the rules to integrate new technologies which are not readily expressed in the old media.

Should Wikipedia not be the place for this?

Since there are no subpages allowed for the 'people behind HouseholdHacker, adding person pages seems to be the only way.

While Justin Matthew is not a 'notable person' in the dusty old ways, in media that nobody reads any more, he is a significantly influential person on the Internet (proven by mathematical analysis, not just by sum of followers or number of posts), and part of an outstanding and new media movement. They are only about 100 of 20,000 of them (counting YouTube partners), and Millions who try (YouTube content creators).

I know, I am asking you to spend time on this.... I take it also that you seem to be one of the more experienced persons here around.

Mike (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mike. Unfortunately, it seems as though there have been quite a few tries to get Justin Matthews his own article. However, there doesn't seem to be reliable, third-party sources out there (from a simple Google search of his name) that indicate why he is notable. See, I do understand that he's the manager of a largely-recognized video channel (trust me, I enjoy HH videos myself), but this doesn't seem to make him more notable for inclusion.

Additionally, (and I'm saying this really nicely... hope you take it the right way) I would hold off on pushing more for this article until your sockpuppetry case comes to a close. I'd love to be of assistance as able. See you around! —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 09:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I am holding off, unfortunately there was still a version out there that I did not find, and some user K7L (for some reason it says no such user) then 'created' a sandbox for my page, vandalizing (deleting) the old one that was there: the only archeological proof is the still existing link to the sandbox on my user page from 9/6 .

Why do you google, I have two references in the article that are independent, one accredited paper, one an independent ezine.

These two references on that page that are as reliable and complete as the ones on the page for Jenna Marbles, which I took as a random example. For both pages, one is an interview of the person, one is a neutral article written by an accredited paper, and in both cases, yes, a passing mention. So why does this go for one and not for the other. I am holding off, once the spi is done I will take up the retaliatory nature of it and the ganging up of three admins proven by interactions between them. There are some people here with admin privileges that should not have them (see my sandbox vandalism by K7L). There seems to be no place to go to stop vandalism by administrators. Things I do are in subpages of my account and my sandbox has stored content. Forgot what was in there exactly but it was material to be used for one of my current projects here.

Mike (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there was an administrator level 'drive by shooting' vandalism: an account K7L that ditched my sandbox does not exist any more.

here is the extract of the log: K7L is red (guess you have to go to my page to see that)

(cur | prev) 10:33, 8 September 2012‎ ArticlesForCreationBot (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,003 bytes) (-34)‎ . . (Cleaning up the submission of afc (general cleanup) (bot)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 10:22, 8 September 2012‎ K7L (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,037 bytes) (+31)‎ . . (Added {{advert}} tag to article (TW)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 10:21, 8 September 2012‎ K7L (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (9,006 bytes) (0)‎ . . (K7L moved page User:Nittmann/sandbox to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Justin Matthew (2): Preferred location for AfC submissions) (undo)
(cur | prev) 20:23, 30 August 2012‎ Citation bot (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (9,006 bytes) (+5)‎ . . ([419]Misc citation tidying. | User-activated.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 20:22, 30 August 2012‎ Nittmann (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,001 bytes) (+473)‎ . . (→‎Request review at WP:AFC: new section) (undo)
(cur | prev) 20:19, 30 August 2012‎ Nittmann (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,528 bytes) (-27)‎ . . (undo)

the link in the email that should lead to the user comes back with wikipedia not finding a page with that name. Here is the notification email:

The Wikipedia page "User:Nittmann/sandbox" has been created on
8 September 2012 by K7L, with the edit summary: Preferred location for
[[WP:AFC|AfC]] submissions 

This is a new page. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nittmann/sandbox for the current
revision.

To contact the editor, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:K7L

Note that additional changes to the page "User:Nittmann/sandbox" will
not result in any further notifications, until you have logged in and
visited the page.

             Your friendly Wikipedia notification system

--

This email notification feature was enabled on English Wikipedia in May
... cut off the rest of the footer...

By normal means it is not that someone can just create a new account and do this kind of things and then delete it. The account was either there for some time, or has never existed, and is now gone. While probably well meaning, either a person messed up royally. There still seem to be backlinks to somewhere somewhere, I'll try to clean this up. I keep my work in progress as subpages of my account and the sandbox as a material repository. That K7L either never really existed, or was created and 'ordained' by hand and then removed, or the user changed his name after this?

Can you find out what that K7L is all about (besides it being a Canadian postal code :-D ), tell me where to send this to check what really happened here?

oh, and K7L is

thx

Mike (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page has been erased too, that's where an admin had posted a threat to thward everything I do, to cut my wikipedia 'career'

There is people running around cleaning up (hastily, doing things wrong): DCshank just cleaned something I did not now was there and should not have been there, saying 'page blanked by user': I never blank pages on mediawiki ever, I moved Justin Matthew (2) into my area, whoever had renamed it to that and placed it back into the hopper had left backlinks. now my talk page is linked to that (my sandbox was too, probably still is): messing up my stuff on purpose I would say, the same three admin names show up, tenacious.

Erasing my talk page: some admins who should never be admins everywhere (unhappily "community operated" sites attract those) are now cleaning up, trying at least (I do have a copy of the page, and with the syslogs it can be verified, I am not stupid: someone threatens me I keep and secure the evidence, experienced Internet investigator here ;-D ).

Please point me to where to go if you know, or forward all this right away.

thx

Mike

Mike (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, it seems like User:K7L has been around since May of this year] and prefers to move pages from people's sandboxes to the WP:AFC namespace so that we can all try to clear that awful backlog (you know, I once cleared it all myself). A look at your talk page's history does not reveal any blanking, nor do the logs show your talk page was ever deleted and restored (or moved, for that matter). You don't need another Justin Matthew article or sandbox entry; please continue to edit the one with the most history, taking care not to copy-and-paste from one to the other so as to preserve the editing history (last resort, we could WP:HISTMERGE them), but if the reason you added "(2)" was to re-enter it into the AFC, that's not necessary. Simply add a fresh AFC tag on the old one.

Once again, your talk page doesn't seem to have ever been erased. If you have a link to the log entry, you can provide it and I will see what happened. Cheers. —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 01:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been back since yesterday night, so it was hidden, covered by a link, or whatever. It came back by 'itself'. The content of the original sandbox never came back. I put stuff in the works as sub pages under my user page.

The Trent edits: I just let the system guess, I did actually not visit the links that came up. Will do that in the future and select the correct links from the disambiguation pages, my fault.

In general, your comment: besides the error with the links not checking where they actually go (I just put square brackets around things that I think should be linked some explanation/reference, this is an encyclopedia after all, if they come back blue I leave it, if red then there's nothing (yet) to this keywork). Would this be a right direction to go? There is also work of his on imdb as a writer, actor, producer, I think of adding a segmented table to that as I did with my article try on Richard Sears who is a producer that won a prize in Cannes (represented the U.S. of A), has some movies (bongwater, the classic, which is not just a druggie movie, if you really look at it it is kind of tracing dependency and addiction - looking under the surface of the jokes and fun, and how it develops).

Would a similar segmented table be adequate? That Trent article: there was once a person info box that had been removed, and I looked at similar pages that have no infobox. So I did not add one (I think reverting someone else's things is not cool unless discussed on the talk page, Trent's talk page was basically empty).

If you have time to give some feedback, if not don't worry. I do appreciate your input.

Mike

Mike (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You reviewed my article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Veterinary Clinical Pathology and the American Society for Veterinary Clinical Pathology, and rejected it due to copyright violation. Could you tell me what you are talking about because I am not aware of using any copyrighted material. I feel that my article has been rejected in error, but would be happy to correct anything that is wrong. Thank you. Pennypatten (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I Googled the paragraph about the ASVCP and got all this stuff. Sorry; I'll restore the article, but I will delete that paragraph. Feel free to continue working on it, but don't copy-paste that one again. See you around! —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 08:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:NTMGreeceCycle1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Duncan, I have read the articles on Reliable Sourses, Citations and Referencing for Beginners and just wanted to check whether the sources are unreliable as they are references to websites? Do I need to have a reference to a published book? For example I have a Doulton book at home which has some of the information in it but not all. So I could reference this?

I had based my article on the Charles Vyse one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Vyse. I can see that this article has references to websites as well but also includes a bibliography section.

Also I can see that this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Doulton also only has web references but are these considered more reliable?

Thanks Thall69 (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1442 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. PS: we have a great AFC helper script at WP:AFCH! News Good article nominee 04 Aug 2012 – Parental brain (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Carina1205 (t · c); see discussion AFCH script improvements 1.16 to 1.17 Batman still works!

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation. If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.
Happy reviewing! TheSpecialUser ^TSU

• Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 08:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EdwardsBot (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ohio Vortex Small Logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1442 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our help desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. Plus, reviewing is easy when you use our new semi-automated reviewing script! Thanks in advance, Nathan2055talk - contribs

The WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter

The WikiProject Articles for creation Newsletter Volume I, No. I – December 2012 Visit the Articles for creation homepage Project news Five changes have been proposed to the AfC policy. Join the discussion here. Another change has been proposed to the courtesy blanking policy. It involves CSDing distributive submissions. Discuss it here. The beta script still needs testing. Learn how you can help here. The backlog is at emergency status and another drive has been proposed here and suggestions on changes to the structure have been proposed here. Discussion on updating the backlog notification is underway here. A discussion on whether autoconfirmed users are allowed to skip the backlog is going on here. Discussion on users not adding categories and not checking copyvios is going on here. Backlog news[1] There are 1440 pending submissions in the backlog. You can help! Article rankings[1]  FA  GA B C Start Stub  FL List Category Disambig Draft File Project Redirect Template NA ??? Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WikiProject Articles for creation  articles by quality     Refresh From the Editors This is the very first newsletter for WikiProject Articles for creation! If you find any errors or have suggestions on what to improve/include in future newsletters, please leave a message here. Contributors to this Issue Dom497 (talk · contribs) Nathan2055 (talk · contribs) Notes ^ a b Information may not be current due to caching. Click here to purge this page's server cache. Script corner: Stable: v4.1.15 - Beta: v4.1.16b2 v4.1.16b2 is now available in the beta channel! Reviewers can use the beta version of the script by following the instructions here and should report bugs here! Release notes can be found here as well as in the source code. If you are JavaScript savvy, please contact Nathan2055 (talk · contribs) if you wish to help with development. Reviewing articles and more since 2005!

Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 13:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for a name change because this current username has been linked to my real name and I'm being harassed by it on other areas of the internet. The name change will prevent the harassment from coming to wikipedia.Sirkonstantine (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Duncan, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison to other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 06:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered at 12:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC) by EdwardsBot (talk), on behalf of WikiProject AFC

This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) at 09:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Duncan! There is a discussion that your input is requested on! I look forward to your comments, thoughts, opinions, criticisms, and questions!

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

This message was composed and sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on User:Barrymgeorge1956, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Whpq (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Duncan! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 05:08, 23 May 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) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Duncan,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused logo with no article used, it's also can't move to commons because of an unused logo will be deleted as of out of project scope.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Willy1018 (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Rafael Anchia.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 in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven 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. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rafael Anchia.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Duncan! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:Local Embassy, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 6 months.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:Local Embassy.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:DINA S.A. logo.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused. Superseded by File:DINA S.A. logo.svg.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 10:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]