User talk:Paul A

Hi. Thanks for the advice. I'll make use of it in future edits. Jimknut (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, I'm a novice at setting up Wikipedia pages and I apparently didn't do things correctly. However, you've remove some vital information from the page I created for Van Howard.

1. The citation by Clifton Howard Vandevender was direct information from Van Howard before he died. 2. "Significant changes such as birth name and claiming a person has died must be supported by reference to a reliable source." I didn't see any articles about his death. If I could find an article or Obituary in the Dallas Morning News, would that suffice?

After Van died, I updated the Wikipedia page and I haven't logged on in a long time.

Do you have any recommendations on how to satisfy the following issues? I don't know what citation style is unclear. Also, as for the notability guidelines, Van played for many years with Ray Price and several others on Ray Price's page have their own page.

This article has an unclear citation style. (March 2011) The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. (March 2011)

NMantooth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmantooth (talk • contribs) 18:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing you need to understand is Wikipedia's policy requiring Verifiability. This is explained in detail on the page Wikipedia:Verifiability, which I recommend you take the time to read, but might be briefly summarised as "Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up." This means that the question you need to consider when adding information to Wikipedia is not so much 'Do I know this is true?' as 'How will other people who are not me know this is true?'

One specific consequence is that we can't accept "Personal conversation with X" as a source, because there's no way for anybody who isn't you or X to confirm whether the conversation took place, or what was said during it. (Except perhaps by tracking down you and X and asking, but we can't expect readers to do that, nor can we reasonably ask you and X to put up with having random strangers drop by to ask if it's true what Wikipedia says they said.)

An article in a reputable daily newspaper would be considered an acceptable source, because newspapers aren't (presumably) in the habit of making things up, and if a reader wanted to find out if a referenced article says what Wikipedia says it says, the newspaper archive would have procedures to deal with that. An obituary in a newspaper is probably the most common type of verifiable source used to support a claim that someone has died.

Verifiability also relates to the issue about "unclear citation style". Part of verifiability is making it clear to the reader not only what sources were used in writing the article, but which parts of the article are due to which source. (This is usually done using footnotes.) A long article with just a list of sources at the end makes things difficult for a reader who wants to verify a particular piece of information, because they have to work through each listed source to they find the one they need.

Uncertain notability often, again, comes down to verifiability: the question is not 'Do you know that Van Howard is notable?' but 'How can somebody who doesn't already know about Van Howard be sure that Van Howard is notable?'. Wikipedia:Notability (music) has a list of ways to demonstrate a musician's notability, which include high-selling albums, major industry awards, or just lots of coverage in (reliable) news media.

One thing I think it's important to note is that playing in a notable band does not, by itself, qualify a musician as notable enough for a Wikipedia article of his very own. Many of the members of Ray Price's band went on to have significant solo careers, and have articles in Wikipedia on that account, not on account of having played with Ray Price. If Van Howard's career consisted of playing in famous bands, he's entitled to be mentioned in the articles about those bands, but if he doesn't demonstrate notability on his own he may not qualify for a separate article that's only about him.

I hope this makes things clearer. — Paul A (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul,

I left you a message on the Van Howard talk page a few days ago. I don't know if you are monitoring that page. I didn't know how to tag you so you would see it but I read on your talk page that I should put the comment on my talk page. 15.227.185.72 (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)NMantooth[reply]

I am monitoring that page, I've just been away from Wikipedia for a few days. I've replied to that message now (on that page, so the conversation stays in one place). — Paul A (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images of Ralph Nader, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The photographs are of the wrong Petronella Barker. I could upload a proper photograph taken by the person herself so there's no copyright problem but I am unsure how to do it. Thank you Rhubarbone (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, can you explain what photographs you're talking about? The Petronella Barker (actress born 1942) article has no photographs on it. — Paul A (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does have the wrong photo on the right hand side when you click onto Google. I'm not sure why the right photos were taken off anyhow in the first place as it was to distinguish between the two Petronella Barkers. I realize there are wrong photos everywhere by 'agorithyms' and 'bots' or something futuristically mathematical but I don't know how to get it right let alone 'clean up' the article! My parents' articles are all wrong too - I don't know who put them on it in the first place - and not a thing goes blue. Oh dear oh dear and I thought it would be so simple! There are the wrong photos there, do believe me, and it say 'report' which I do repeatedly to no avail whatever. I'm fed up with the muddle of it. How can I get it right? Please help me do it. I mustn't let it beat me. Thank you. Rhubarbone (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it has the wrong photo on Google, that's a problem with Google, not with Wikipedia, and there's nothing we can do about it directly. The only sure way to fix it would be to get action from Google.

That said, adding a photo to the Wikipedia article might help, and wouldn't hurt.

The reason the photo that used to be on the article was removed, according to the records, was that the person who added it didn't make a clear statement that Wikipedia was allowed to use it. (To be precise, they said Wikipedia could use it, but it wasn't clear that they had the authority to say so.) If you know of an appropriate photo that is available, or can be made available, for Wikipedia's use, there shouldn't be any problem with adding it.

Wikipedia:Image use policy explains what kinds of images Wikipedia can use, and what one should do when adding a photo to avoid uncertainty about whether Wikipedia can use it. If you have any questions, please ask. — Paul A (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Name is Mark Heaney and I have just discovered my page has been removed by you as I posted a link to my official facebook page.

Apparently this is against Wikipedia rules which I had no knowledge of.

I am happy to remove the link.

I find this all totally over the top and would like my page which is an important part of my online presence put back up please.

I added more information to the page as it stated it would be removed as there was not enough actually on the page so can't win really.

Like i said I would appreciate the page being put back up.

Mark Heaney — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genekrupa2477 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link is not the problem. The problem is that the entire article text is copied word-for-word from Mark Heaney's Facebook page. There are two major potential issues with this, the immediately relevant one being that copying entire pages from other web sites without gaining the appropriate permission can get us into a lot of trouble.

If you are, as you say, Mark Heaney yourself, then the situation can easily be resolved. All you have to do is give Wikipedia permission to use the text. The notice on the Mark Heaney page includes an explanation of how to do this: click on the link marked If you hold the copyright to this text, you can license it in a manner that allows its use on Wikipedia.

(Mind you, if you are Mark Heaney, you should bear in mind that taking such a substantial interest in your own article may be in breach of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy.) — Paul A (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got nothing better to do. I am Mark Heaney. So your saying I have to get permission from myself to post the information on my page and clear it with Wikipedia but as I am also taking an interest in my own page and why this keeps happening is also in breach of Wikipedia rules. So with that in mind not much I can do. Why have you taken such an interest in my page and gone to all this trouble to check what has been copied from facebook? Never come across this before. The information was put up there by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emi2477 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that this is, famously, the Encyclopedia That Anybody Can Edit. Anybody can edit this page and post a message saying "I am Mark Heaney". Take five minutes to think about the damage that could be caused if we took the word of somebody who said "I am Mark Heaney" and was lying – you don't really want us to be that gullible, any more than we do.

Please, follow the instructions you were given about how to confirm your identity with Wikipedia. It's really not at all painful, and if you'd done it when you were first given them, this whole sorry business would have been sorted out weeks ago. — Paul A (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry business, Lying? There was nothing wrong with that page until you for some strange reason you got involved. Do not start to patronise or be rude to me. Good manners cost nothing and I take offence at your accusations basically accusing me of fraudulent behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emi2477 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I got involved because I saw someone copy your web page – someone who, please remember, didn't say anything then about being Mark Heaney or otherwise having Mark Heaney's permission. Someone who, as far as I had any way of knowing, might have been up to no good. When I reported the page as a potential copyright issue – please also note the word "potential" – I was trying to help.

You'll have noticed that I accept your claim to be Mark Heaney. The point you need to understand now is that it's not up to me. The decision has been out of my hands since I made the initial report. When I called this a "sorry business", I meant that I'm sorry you've wasted so much time trying to convince me I'm wrong when that won't make any difference to the outcome. — Paul A (talk) 09:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your helpful advice.

I need to get hold of Google somehow then.

Regarding the photograph of Petronella Barker which I-Never-Cry took off Wikipedia, it was Ghosted Bread who put it on, who is in fact my daughter, and Rhubarbone or Ghosted Bread could upload somehow a photograph taken of Petronella Barker of undisputed copyright therefore. One or the other could also could upload similar photographs of Eric Barker and Pearl Hackney and at least get it right on Wikipedia. Then move on to attempting to contact Google. It will never be completely right I do realize that but it should be righter than it is in my view. (I think may be the 'Geeks' do it as a bit of fun sometimes.)

On a separate subject, I put in some parental facts about John Skyppe, on his Wikipedia page, who was the almoner to Anne Boleyn born in the late 15th century in the UK. I have done some research on old wills in Norfolk. The sources are 'primary'(the actual document), not 'secondary' (an internet source). Is that acceptable? It doesn't go blue. If someone were interested, they would have to go to the Norfolk Records Office as they have copyright or order the document online. No-one has questioned it but is that OK? I could put some more on about him as the Dictionary of National Biography have got some facts wrong but I daren't do it in case it's not the right thing to do.

I shall try and find out how to upload a photograph of Petronella Barker etc and do it in the near future. Thank you very much again for your help. Rhubarbone (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the John Skyppe research: Wikipedia has a core policy of no original research. That is, Wikipedia cannot be the first place the results of new research are published. The link explains this in detail, but the short version is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means its role is to gather and arrange existing knowledge, not to produce new knowledge. Being a publisher of original research requires systems for judging the reliability and usefulness of the research that Wikipedia does not have, and prefers to leave to publishers for whom it is part of their role.

If you know of anywhere the information from the wills has already been published – in a magazine or journal article, perhaps, or a history book – that would be an acceptable source for Wikipedia. It would not have to be available on the internet; though Wikipedia's editors use a lot of online sources because they're easily accessible, a publication that is accessible only by travelling to an actual bookshop or library would still be considered accessible enough. But it does have to have been published in a form intended for distribution to the general public, by a publisher with some editorial standards.

Good luck with the photographs. — Paul A (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Retrieved on 2010-06-07.</ref><ref>[http://www.teamusa.org/athletes/HA/Dawn-Harper Dawn Harper]], USA Track and Field.</ref> On March 23, 2013, Harper married hometown friend, Alonzo Nelson. The

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice, I will write a new article. I just need a couple of days, please do not delete the article. Thanks Mohegh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohegh (talk • contribs) 08:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have added a new temporary article about Dr. Abbas Rajabifard on the address below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abbas_Rajabifard/Temp The article is written based on Mr. Rajabifard CV, and the information available on his page on the web site of University of Melbourne. I got it approved by the university administration. If there are still issues that are to be solved, please give me a chance to edit it before you decide to delete the article. Thanks! Mahssa Mohegh Mohegh —Preceding undated comment added 09:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have added a new temporary article about Dr. Abbas Rajabifard on the address below a while ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abbas_Rajabifard/Temp The article is written based on Mr. Rajabifard CV, and the information available on his page on the web site of University of Melbourne. I got it approved by the university administration. If there are still issues that are to be solved, please give me a chance to edit it before you decide to delete the article. Thanks! Mohegh (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Mohegh[reply]

Re your comment on the birthdate change.

The original date on the article was 1958. Chris thought it was a great joke being 10 years younger so don't be so sensitive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.11.66.122 (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you care so much being someone from Australia? Of course there isn't any published content available. This is india.

Please do read this message it took me 3 minutes just to get to this talk section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.23.174.237 (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I, a Wikipedia editor, not care about the quality of a Wikipedia article? I don't see what difference it makes what country I'm from.

The importance of verifiability and the avoidance of original research are two of Wikipedia's core content policies, and you really should read both of them if you intend to contribute to Wikipedia. — Paul A (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alex Elena (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Indie

Kris Thomas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Count Me In (song)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Paul A, I saw you reviewed the article Azubuike Wokocha on December 17, 2013. Today RadioFan put it up for Deletion. But I believe the article meets notability, it discusses a radio personality, recording artist and music producer who has won an award for his production work. Please I'll appreciate it if you can kindly check it out and help remove that Article For Deletion notice. Thank You.Afrowildchild (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for revert! Can you please put this article in your watchlist? You see, there is a user here who believes that such infoboxes are wrong (in his opinion), and deletes them, I tried to catch him with edit warring but no cigar. It will be very kind of you if you will see edits made by Toccata quarta, make sure you will revert them as well. Many thanks. Also watch Vadim Repin since the user have tendency to remove infoboxes from any classical musicians that are mostly Soviet.--Mishae (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Leona Lewis. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Hello. This edit summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leona_Lewis&curid=7352704&diff=595090565&oldid=594904257 of yours does not show good faith toward the editor to changed it back to the musical artist template. His argument is that Lewis is first and foremost a singer, and thus that is the template most applicable. Although I personally agree with you, it would have perhaps been better to visit the talk page first before to see why it was changed back rather than using sarcasm in your summary.  — ₳aron 10:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't using sarcasm; I was entirely serious. In retrospect I may have failed to clearly convey what I was being serious about.

I don't especially care whether the page has a person infobox or a musical artist infobox, but if a decision is made to change one to the other, it should be done properly. Merely changing the name of the infobox, without overhauling its contents, results in a damaged infobox (which may even, as on this occasion, have an entire second infobox of the same type wrapped inside it).

By the way, since you've raised the subject of how to interact with other editors: I advise you to consider your audience before using any boilerplate message that assumes the recipient is a Wikipedia newcomer. If the receipient is actually an experienced Wikipedian – and especially if they were already an experienced Wikipedian when you were a Wikipedia newcomer – there's a danger that they'll feel insulted, and annoying your listener or making them feel defensive is not a good way to get them to listen to you. — Paul A (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You was being serious, but it read very sarcastic still. I can't help that the bot generates it for assuming that you are a newcomer, I simply clicked on the assume good faith option. As I said, I actually support the edit you made, but I can see how the other editor who changed it back to the other version may feel insulted by your edit summary. If I thought it, he definitely thought it.  — ₳aron

Of course you can't help the bot's wording, but there's no rule saying you have to use the bot; if the bot's wording is inappropriate, you are allowed to write your own message. :)

Having slept on it, I freely admit that you're right: I did write a bad edit summary that could hurt the feelings of the editor whose edit I undid. There's no way to change the edit summary now, but I will endeavour to do better in future. — Paul A (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know it was going to say you're a newcomer. It shouldn't say that anyway, the templates shouldn't be just aimed at newcomers. Someone else came along yesterday and changed it back again, but he removed parts that shouldn't have been removed. I still prefer the person template.  — ₳aron

Now I suppose that infobox artist 'background' is a parameter to control the color. Do you know whether that is generally a special infobox paramter name? (During a visit to Craig Sharmat concerning his assistance with parent's fiction Nate the Great, I presumed that it meant career background before becoming notable.)

P.S. Yesterday I linked several terms in the lead paragraph. Now I see that backed up is a mistake; further, we have only backup bands and vocalists at backup (disambiguation) and I don't know whether there is a good target for that. Meanwhile I haven't a clue about the neighboring term 'cues' (disambiguation cue).

--P64 (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the musical artist infobox, 'background' is both a description of career background and a control of the infobox color; it takes one of six pre-defined values, each of which is associated with a particular color. You may find a more detailed description, and a list of the allowed values, at Template:Infobox musical artist#background.

I don't have any suggestions about the links; I agree that the disambiguation pages don't appear to offer any good options. There may be no better course than to leave them unlinked. — Paul A (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Deletion of rank before the name of Peter Stevens (RAF Officer). Please see the entry for Bertram James, which begins with his RAF rank. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertram_James

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrera57 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I've fixed it too. — Paul A (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After the article was reverted for a fifth time, I decided to go through the AfD process to get an official consensus to restore the redirect. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infrastructures -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Paul A,

There is an article that has been nominated for deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fescal&action=history

This is an act of action involving deliberate destruction vandalism I believe as I see no reason for why it should be deleted.

Can help shed some light on this and any advice would be welcome.

Sincerely,

Simon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimoninIceland (talk • contribs) 18:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simon,

When an article is nominated for deletion, the notice at the top of the article contains the sentence "Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page." If you click on the link in "this article's entry", it will take you to a page that explains the reasons why it was nominated. If you do not think the reasons are sufficient, you can say so on that page.

Beyond that, here is a piece of advice you may find useful: don't go accusing other editors of deliberate vandalism just because they've done something you don't approve of. It's almost certainly not true, and even if it is true, making the accusation is unlikely to result in a co-operative and productive conversation.

— Paul A (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, thank you for your edits on the Beau Coup page. I was wondering if you had to change the header section. Amherst Records has sent an email to permissions giving me rights to use the back of the album cover to put in the spot I referenced. I see you took that away. Should I just change it when the picture is released for use on Wikipedia? Mmcard59 (talk) 05:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. Add the image when it becomes available, but until then don't put any kind of placeholder message in the article, as that does not help the reader and only makes the page look untidy. — Paul A (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok great! Thanks for your help! I'm new to Wiki so I'm not very versed. Do you know how I will be notified the picture is available and ok to load on the page? Mmcard59 (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been personally involved in adding an image that needed to be released, so I'm not sure. I think usually what you do is watch the image's description page, and there will be a notice added there when the permission is processed. — Paul A (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will check that out. Also, I changed the heading in the description box to read "Beau Coup Band" to differentiate it from other Beau Coup's or Beaucoup's that may arise. Mmcard59 (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, do you mind if I restore the photographer's name at DJ Cassidy? [1] I went to some trouble to get the image, and they were very kind to give us such a nice one (I wasn't expecting that). So partly as a matter of courtesy, and partly because it's interesting, I'd like to add the name of the notable photographer. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions is specific: "image credits in the infobox image are discouraged, even if the artist is notable, since the infobox should only contain key facts of the article's subject". — Paul A (talk) 05:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for listing Oleseng Shuping at WP:CP. I'd appreciate your opinion on what should happen to it. I'm trying to process it, and have run into a minor glitch. Given the short history and blatant copy-paste, I nominated it for speedy deletion as G12; speedy was declined by Ronhjones, on the grounds that it is already tagged as a copyvio. He suggested asking your opinion ... so here I am. Did you feel that the topic was an important one? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC) (I've watch-listed this page)[reply]

It's not so much that I think the page is particularly worth saving, as that I personally tend not to use speedy deletion templates except in extremely blatant cases. I don't think speedy would have flown in this case, anyway, because the page's creator has asserted on the talk page that they have permission to use the text. (I don't know if they've backed that up with any of the formal verification methods, though.) — Paul A (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• within the African-American Pentecostal Church movement, including Christ Universal Temple) (CUT)<ref name=Temple>[http://cutemple.org/founder/ Johnnie Colmon], CUT Founder Biography,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't review my own article. It was reviewed by Gluegolgier. You can check the page curation log. I simply removed the tag after it had been reviewed. Can you undo your undo please? Thank you. --Kbabej (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually just went in and removed the tag; it was faster. No action required. --Kbabej (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for misunderstanding the situation, and I'll try to remember to check the page curation log if a similar situation occurs in future. — Paul A (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, all bien. I like the changes you've made to the infobox; it looks a lot better. :) --Kbabej (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to become an administrator in the future I would like to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigolt1on1 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your question may be found on the page Wikipedia:Administrators. — Paul A (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• played, recorded, and/or toured with Nyee Moses, [[Todd Howarth]], David Maldonado, Luis Maldonado), [[Into The Presence]], [[Patrick Monahan|Pat Monahan]] ([[Train (band)|Train]]) and [[Eric Dover]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Paul Kidby has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a main editor of Legends, I am calling your attention to Talk:Legend_(disambiguation)#Merger_proposal.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Paul,

My name is Ardeshir Jamshidi (or for short just Addi Jamshidi). Dr. Jamshidi was my uncle. He passed away on August 20, 2014. I would like to provide his complete biography on Wikipedia for his contributions. But have a hard time understanding what/how it is that I need to do in order to proceed. If I provide you his biography, would you kindly be able to put it in the proper format on Wikipedia? Also, in your note to me you mentioned of verifiable documents. Exactly what I need to provide for his biography? I can certainly provide the birth and death certificate, and his 50+ patents should speak on his contributions. I do have his complete background from childhood, but obviously I can not provide his 5th grade transcript to prove the he attended the elementary school in Yazd Iran.

Anyway.... I appreciate your help as I really would like for his name, and life to be recorded for all to know of the man that he was and continues to be for so many...

Kindest Regards,

Addi Jamshidi San Jose, California USA (408)916-7475 AddiJamshidi@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by AddiJamshidi (talk • contribs) 14:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit. I see where the pagename thing messed up, but what was wrong with the image sizing? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 06:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it turns out I may have been wrong about the image markup; I went by general knowledge of infoboxes instead of looking at the specific instructions for {{Infobox venue}}, which I now see do say to do it more or less how you did it. Most infoboxes I've worked with, the rule is that you just enter the name of the image (without any of the [[File:]] markup) and let the size and other format options be determined by the infobox. (It's possible that the instructions on {{Infobox venue}} date back to a time before infoboxes were capable of automatically determining things like that.) — Paul A (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I look over the template's revision history, you may be right; at the same time, no one ever added an "image size" parameter, something I don't yet know how to do. :D —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 09:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, just for shits and giggles, I checked the code and image_size does exist, it's just not on the list at the template page. Not having the sizing param didn't make any sense xD —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you please point me to a policy on Wikipedia for the captions of images? If so, I would like to read it. Thanks. - Hoops gza (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia policy on image captions is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions. The sections most relevant to my edit to the Walter Kutschmann article are "Succinctness" and "Infoboxes and leading images". — Paul A (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the email and clarification. Your work makes Wikipedia a better place.

My question is what constitutes a "reliable published source"? Does this: http://notices.irishtimes.com/39406862-death-mcsweeney,-barry

I am not being facetious but the person in question was not a celebrity, it may not be picked up at all by a major news source or publication. So does this mean the page is to remain out of date?

Alataree (talk) 07:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a page on identifying reliable sources.

I would say the the Irish Times qualifies as a reliable published source, but that notice still has the problem of lacking details which identify its subject as being the same Barry McSweeney that Wikipedia has an article about. (A point which I find is underlined for me by noticing that this is not the only Barry McSweeney whose death the Irish Times has published this year.) It would be helpful if there were a death notice that did mention something recognisable about his career (or, failing that, a source of some kind that mentioned details from both the death notice and the Wikipedia article, which could be used to establish a link). — Paul A (talk) 09:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. In regards to my question about the page remaining out of date, is this a normal Wikipedia policy; if a person's death notice does not mention their career (they never do) or a reliable source does not directly mention the deceased then the page's information remains out of date? I find myself now having to 'prove' the deceased is deceased! But I can't because there are no online sources mentioning the person's death AND their career. However the person is in fact dead. Forgive the newbie nature of my questions but what I thought was a helpful edit has turned into a cumbersome back and forth. I want to see this page reflect accurate information. How do I go about this now? Can you advise what the next steps should be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alataree (talk • contribs) 16:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, I note that BMSA, a company Barry McSweeney set up, has posted a death notice on their website as a splash page. http://www.bmsa.eu - if you look at the founder page it clearly verifies that this McSweeney is the one in question in the Wikipedia article I have been looking to get updated. Is this sufficient to "prove" that he is deceased and to allow the page to be updated to reflect the correct information? Alataree (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a step in the right direction, for sure, but I'm not sure it's quite enough. For one thing, part of the point of requiring published sources is so that an interested reader go look at the source for themselves, and a splash page like that is probably ephemeral; at some point, it's likely they'll turn it back to their usual front page, and then the citation will cease to be useful. I'd be inclined to wait for them to make some more enduring change, such as updating their "About Our Founder" page. — Paul A (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With the greatest of respect, at this point can I ask who or what determines you as the keeper of this page on Wikipedia? I want to understand how one person has the right to keep a page factually incorrect due to their interpretation of what may or may not be an accurate or long-lasting source of information. What if the company update their founder profile information stating McSweeeny is dead. You then "accept" the change and then a month later the website is shut down. Do you then revert the page to saying Barry McSweeney is alive as the referenced source no longer exists? I find this adherence to what are ultimately guidelines rather obtuse. Can you clarify if you would accept the founder profile update stating McSweeney is dead as a suitable source and reinstate my changes to the page if this update happens? I will physically call the company and ask them to make the change in order to see this page updated. Alataree (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have got on the wrong foot somewhere. I have not claimed to be the "keeper" of this or any other page; I don't assert any more authority than any other experienced Wikipedian editor familiar with Wikipedia's policies. You have asked what the rules are in this case; I have attempted to explain to the best of my knowledge and ability, always attempting to indicate the places where I am expressing my own opinion or interpretation.

Perhaps I shouldn't have tried to explain things myself. Certainly in any case I should have recommended before now that you read the policy page Wikipedia:Verifiability. It describes the fundamental basis of the issues in this case, and probably does so better than I have managed to. — Paul A (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I apologise if the tone of my previous remark seemed more brusque than it should have; I accept you were trying to help and that it is my inexperience pitched against your understanding of the rules that is ultimately the source of my frustration. As I said a good while back, it's people like yourself with knowledge (and obvious patience) that make WP work. As you undid my changes and pointed out the unreliability of the source I assumed you had taken on the role (or were prescribed the role) of "keeper" (I know, a terrible word to use in the cotext of Wikipedia) of this page. I have studied the link you provided; thanks for that. Based on what I have read I am now going to research further and find/cause two reliable and acceptable published sources confirming McSweeney's death. I will submit them here and would appreciate your feedback on them. If you can advise if they are strong enough sources that will survive over time perhaps you will reinstate my changes? Alataree (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, the founder page has been updated on the BMSA website to indicate the passing of Barry McSweeney. http://bmsa.eu/founder.php - from my interpretation of the information at Wikipedia:Verifiability this appears to me a valid and reliable source. Can the page now be updated to reflect the correct information? Alataree (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to think that will do as a starting point, although it would still be a good idea to add references to any third-party obituaries you may come across. (If I haven't already thrown too many policy pages at you, you might also like to read Wikipedia:Third-party sources.) I have edited the Barry McSweeney article accordingly. — Paul A (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Paul, have been in contact with his Alma mater, should have an in memoriam reference shortly. Alataree (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Sainte is an established and influential DJ and Producer that has appeared in music magazines, appeared on television, been quoted in a John Robb book on music history "The North Will Rise Again", and toured consistently since 1990. will you please advise me on how to create a proper article about this artist? thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fulber (talk • contribs) 13 November 2014

You could do worse than read the advice Wikipeda has provided on pages like Wikipedia:Starting an article and Wikipedia:Your first article. They say everything I would tell you, and probably things I'd forget to mention. — Paul A (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Paul A thanks for the feedback.

anyway, since Im new here, I would like to ask you a question. How can I upload image for profile picture?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisuper2015 (talk • contribs) 19 January 2015‎

There are detailed instructions on the page Wikipedia:Uploading images. — Paul A (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nigh 3 years ago, you move-protected Charles Dodgson (archdeacon). How would you recommend we resolve that situation? Since the discussion never resolved, I would still like to move the page to Charles Dodgson (priest), in line with every other archdeacon's article on the 'pedia. DBD 20:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul,

Sorry to disturb you but one of the page I created quite a long time ago has been deleted last year (speedy deletion at the subject demand). Now the subject of this page would like to have it back on. The admin who deleted the page is now retired and as you were one of the other admin who modified the page I wonder if you could help me. Here is the info I have. Thank you very much. Audrey.

20:04, 18 July 2014 Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) deleted page Lucio " Lagarto " Rodrigues (G8: redirect to a deleted or nonexistent page (TW)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyBjj (talk • contribs)

Hello Paul,

This was left on my Wiki page recently.

see you have a history of vandalising this page to suit your own agenda, as you are evidently (based on your edit summaries) Heaney himself. The references confirm you are from Peterborough, and the birth records shows you have to have been born in Kensington - NOT Crouch End. I know it might sound cooler to say you grew up in London instead of Peterborough and that you were born in Crouch End instead of posho Kensington - but knock it off now. This is an enclopedia, and deal with facts - not false words provided by the subjects themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sproutking (talk • contribs) 21:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Its really nasty.

I adjusted the page to make sure the facts were correct.

I was born in St mary Abbotts hospital but i lived and grew up until I was 5 in Crouch end.

How Can I find out who wrote this.

Many Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emi2477 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Hoffa (Movie) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be 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. Krychek (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Paul A. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Paul A. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hugo (programming language) 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/Hugo (programming language) 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. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 20:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Yellow Matter Custard requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be 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.

I am new at this, but can you tell when I am still editing? You reverted the page before I was done (yes I had saved it in the interim, old habit of saving often!) and then after I restored my earlier text and added more you were ok with it? LissFern (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you must be thinking of somebody else: I edit Wikipedia only very rarely these days, and I haven't touched any pages on Wikipedia since before you signed up. If you're talking about Weather, Climate, and Society – it would help if you'd said which page "the page" is – then I haven't edited it in nearly six years. The editor who reverted your early changes, and then came back to help tidy up after your later additions, was Onel5969.

Wikipedia doesn't tell you when someone else is in the process of editing a page, only if they've saved their changes while you were editing. So in this case Onel5969 wouldn't have been able to tell that you were still adding more to the article and seems to have thought that you'd left it as an incomplete stub. In future, if you're actively expanding a page and don't want other editors to jump the gun, you can add the {{Under construction}} notice to the page while you're working, or put something in the edit summary to say that you're still actively working on it. — Paul A (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping Paul A - that's apparently exactly what happened. The article looks okay now. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Kurland 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/Michael Kurland 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. KDS4444 (talk) 07:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Paul A. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional countries in the future, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bruce McArthur. Since you had some involvement with the Bruce McArthur redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. paul2520 (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with Gilbert and Sullivan, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --woodensuperman 13:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused, low-res, no obvious encyclopedic use

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.

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, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Darren Shan characters requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Planets in the Noon Universe requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Greyhawk nations, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Noon Universe characters requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sagamore (ship) disambiguation. Since you had some involvement with the Sagamore (ship) disambiguation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. DannyS712 (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Michael Henderson disambiguation. Since you had some involvement with the Michael Henderson disambiguation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. DannyS712 (talk) 06:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of fictional works, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hell Has Harbour Views (film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable film, with no verifiable reviews found during search. Tagged for notability for 3 years.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hell Has Harbour Views (film) 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/Hell Has Harbour Views (film) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:762 births requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Palantir. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 21#Palantir until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hugo (programming language). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 18#Hugo (programming language) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of fictional books has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Don Featherstone (filmmaker) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable filmmaker that has had the addition citations needed tag since 2010.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sahaib3005 (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Characters (Wing Commander) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 10#Characters (Wing Commander) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marvel Comics cosmic entities has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:The Three Worlds novels indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ian Dingman (Disambiguation) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Ian Dingman (Disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have doubtless forgotten this matter from 2003, but I am curious about it: As the original author of the J J Lynx entry, I described Lynx as Austrian, for reasons that I have now forgotten. I recently noticed that you changed this to German in a very early revision of the text, and I am curious as to the source of this information. It's a small matter, but I am currently doing a study of the controversy over the contribution of Dorothy L Sayers to Lynx's book on the future of the Jews, and a couple of letters from Lynx (unpublished) illuminate the specific reason for the rejection, which has eluded Sayers scholarship until now. Hence my interest in any kind of information about Lynx, and if by chance you recall any source of information that I've missed, I'd appreciate learning of it. (In fact, my poor long-orphaned article, only recently released from bondage, was intended to see if anyone had more information on him.) Dandrake (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you've misread the edit history, and I can't help you; the change you refer to was made by an anonymous editor in the edit following mine. My edit was only copy-editing, and I don't have any additional knowledge on the subject. Paul A (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tobacco advertising characters has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 18 § Category:Association football people by prefecture in Japan. Qwerfjkltalk 16:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thal (Doctor Who) 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/Thal (Doctor Who) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Pokelego999 (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Judge (2000 AD) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Rani (Doctor Who) 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/The Rani (Doctor Who) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Pokelego999 (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Judge (2000 AD) 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/Judge (2000 AD) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § X by Y in Z on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkltalk 11:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Suicide Slum 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/Suicide Slum until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images of Ralph Nader has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 1 § American people by populated place on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comic book editors has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Thematthewmurray (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of fictional Cambridge colleges 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/List of fictional Cambridge colleges until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Jontesta (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]