ENeville

Hi, ENeville

I recently noticed you made changes to the Clip-On ties article, Thank for doing this, but I also noticed that on the talk page you commented about the word "snapper" and that it should be removed, If you feel it should be removed please do so, like you said it might be a brand name.

Kind Regards

Dep. Garcia 17:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Nice work on the various melon pages. Just a note on the new category edits: when categories are hierarchical, it isn't necessary to include any but the most specific group. So melons should be in the melon category, but not themselves in the accessory fruit or fruit categories. The melon category get placed in the accessory fruit category, and the accessory fruit category gets placed in the fruit category. -- JHunterJ 19:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi ENeville, It is a standard automatic message that is left when clicking "Revert (AGF)". These are a series of extra links that you get when installing Navigation pop-ups. Other links are "Revert vandalism", which leaves a similar message, along the lines "Reverting Vandalism by 66.154.149.21 to last version". I find them very useful too. As a rule of thumb, I use Revert (AGF) (AGF stands for assuming good faith) for edits that could come from a new user not familiar with what wikipedia is all about. Hope this helps. Asterion^talk 17:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

PS: If you go to Navigation pop-ups, there is a simple explanation on how to install the extra features. Then you only have to check the history of any article where you have concerns about the last edit, click on diff next to the date and time and you would be taken to another page comparing the new and older text. Over the new version you would notice the extra links: Revert (AGF), Revert (vandalism) and simply Revert (I use the latter to revert myself if I have made a mistake and want to go back to the previous version).

Please don't replace prod tags, thanks. Kappa 00:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello! No need to apologize, but it is generally accepted that moby links are useful to retrieve launch dates in different regions, publisher and some other data, that is why the {{moby}} template exists. General information and discussion about video game-related articles can be held at the video games wikiproject and its talk page respectively. I believe they follow the external link guidelines found here. As for linking to forums, they are not generally accepted unless it is an official forum or board (and only if the board or forum is not in the same official site, in example, if www.supergame111.com is the official site, and www.supergame111.com/board is the URL for the board, then you only include www.supergame111.com to the article. However, if www.supergame111.com is the official site and www.superboard111.com is the official board or forum, you may be able to include both addresses in the external links section. Note that forums are usually not linked (see point 9). Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 18:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problem - I bow to your superior knowledge of questionably tasteful restaurant chains ;) Dave 17:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't know for sure, but I've certainly never heard the term used in English for her, so any advocate of it ought to find a source. john k 23:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Alright, I'll just leave you to it then. :) --andrewI20^Talk 03:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC) (sorry for all the confusion i've caused). Nah, it's okay. You can continue on. --andrewI20^Talk 04:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I intended to delete the quick delete templates. Deleting the merge templates as well was a mistake (I think at the moment a merge is needed). Thanks for correcting me.Dejvid 17:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

The correct spelling is De Lorean. On Wikipedia, you will find that the articles for the company, the car, and its creator are all spelled this way, in De Lorean Motor Company, De Lorean DMC-12, and John De Lorean (see John De Lorean article for info on the spelling). I used to spell it "DeLorean" too, but just because it is the most common spelling does not make it correct. --Lyght 20:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ahh, AIV is one of the more fast-paced pages on the whole wiki. :) "Blocked, not empty" as an edit summary will translate to "I or another administrator has blocked the listed user(s) from editing, but there are more listings to be investigated." Make sense? It's important for admins to tack on "empty" or "not empty" in their edit summaries, because of the sheer number of people who actively watch that page for edits. If I remove a listing for a different reason, I should use a different summary; if I appear to have removed a listing in error, you're welcome to bring it to my attention or relist (preferably with an explanation) as you like. Luna Santin 00:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

The use of the consistent coloured fonts for fare zones was a consensus decision after discussion here, so I don't think it is appropriate for you to be removing them without further discussion and getting agreement. Personally, I have no trouble reading the coloured fonts, so don't see a problem with them remaining. Philip J. Rayment 14:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

ha i was in the middle of writing a similar thing, beat me to it. cheers mate --Dan027 14:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

no problem mate. --Dan027 07:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

To push the article to the top of the category. --minghong 18:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I made a dumb mistake in not reading the talk page, I have been really busy in RL and a lot has happened. I will from now on make sure I read the talk pages. Have a nice day--Seadog.M.S 00:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Regarding Lovejoy (disambiguation), in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) it says that for a disambiguation page for Title, entries for names with Title for only part of the name should not be included, but rather put into a separate article if there are more than a handful. ENeville 21:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi ENeville. I fear you may have misinterpreted (not in the words but in the spirit) the MoS page. There are numerous disambiguation pages that have multiple listings see [1] and [2] that don't quite follow the rule that you cite.

More importantly if you read heading #11 'Break rules' you will see that the rules are meant to be flexible. A user who has entered just the word 'Lovejoy' in the search line is first taken to the page for the show, then one more click on the disambig page link takes them to all the possible Lovejoys (well all that I know of though there may be more) and then they can choose the one they want. The page that you replaced it with requires one further click (not a big thing in the grand scheme of things but some users give up when they have to go to far in their search) to get to basically the same page. Also, your new page is list page not a disambiguation page (again not an important difference). I also want to make you aware that, although you added 'Category:surname' to your page, if you go the that category you will not yet find Lovejoy listed in the L's. You need go back and and add |Lovejoy (that is straight line Lovejoy) next to the word Surname, then it will be added to that list and can be seen by all.

I apologize if any of this seems rude because I don't mean it to be. The rules here at wikipedia are numerous and are rarely fixed in stone. I think that both of the pages that we have created are useful and can coexist. Happy Editing! MarnetteD | Talk 22:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

You can ask for a comment if you wish it will probably lead to us both learning something interesting, though again I don't think that it is a big deal (referring to the Break rules section again, sorry I know I already mentioned it). I went to the surnames category and it doesn't just say Lovejoy but has the full title of your page. All of the other listings are just the surname and while I am not sure that there is anything wrong with your title you may want to also ask whether you should change the name of your page or not when you go to the comment page. Sorry I didn't give better instructions. MarnetteD | Talk 22:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

You may want to wait a sec before going to the comment page. User:JHunterJ did a proper cleanup on the Lovejoy disambiguation page and I have asked him/her to look into our discussion. Now this editor may not have any info for us but an answer from the person who worked on the page may be quicker than from someone who hasn't been involoved before. I will keep you up to date. MarnetteD | Talk 23:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Whew these messages are going faster than I can keep up with. If you go to JHunterJ's talk page you can see what I am asking him and I assume that you will have already ween his first reply to me. Again I will keep you up to date on his messages and let me know what you here from the pump (I see us sitting around taking a break from a hard days farming smoking a corn cob pipe and taking a refreshing drink whenever I see someone going to the village pump. MarnetteD | Talk 23:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi again ENeville. I went offline for dinner and am just catching up. Am I reading it right that the surname template that JHunterJ added to the pagee seems to fit both our needs re the MoS. If not let me know. This has been a good learning experience nad it was nice meeting you thru this discussion. Best wishes in all your future edits and have a good Sunday. MarnetteD | Talk 00:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sure. I'll post my reasons for reversions over on the Karen talk page, though, so any future editors can see 'em as to how the page got to that state.

Mind you, to some extent it was my responsibility to do this during my initial revert; I personally dislike it when people make non-obvious reverts, but I think I was mildly pressed for time when I did it. SnowFire 03:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Go ahead and remove it. I thought I would have time, but then we began to read War and Peace in one of my classes, and my free time vanished. I would like to translate it, but I won't have time in the forseeable future. Thank you, however, for bringing this to my attention. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 17:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

There is a new move request and survey regarding Cork. This time it is proposed to move Cork to Cork (city) in order to move Cork (disambiguation) to Cork. You are being informed since you voted in the last Cork survey. See Talk:Cork. --Serge 07:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

There is a new proposal on naming conventions for fish being discussed at WikiProject Fishes. As a member of said project your feedback would be appreciated at the WikiProject Fishes talk page here. Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 07:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

what are the parent projects of the group? it would be good for us to list them on the temp project page. themcman1 (help me with my sig) 11:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

i have had a go at making a template for us to place on related articles. themcman1 (help me with my sig) 15:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

there is now an official page for the project now, i am just going through the process of changing at the moment! themcman1 (help me with my sig) 16:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

It appears to me that you were endeavoring to address the proposed move for azure (color) when commenting on Talk:azure. The discussion was actually at Talk:azure (color). Two points:

• The improved fit of "(heraldry)" as modifier is well made (I belatedly noted it myself).
• It looks like I may have thrown you off by piping the link at the bottom of Talk:azure. Looking at it now, I'm not sure why I did that. It may have just been a proofreading boo-boo while trying make all the appropriate links in different posts for the proposed move. Sorry if that caused confusion.

ENeville 17:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I read the discussions at several places. I've now closed the other poll as well (to reduce confusion). Hope this helps. - jc37 17:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

You made a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to fix the spelling of Image:Esente superbum.jpg, but that isn't one of the functions of that page. If you'd like to follow up on the change, please take a look at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Header#What can be moved? for more info. Thanks for your help! Dekimasuよ! 00:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, sorry for the delay but I re-uploaded the image & took care of the rest. Thanks for catching the error. Sometimes I could not spell if my life depended on it... ;) Renata 00:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry about any problems caused by the merging of those articles. But everyone in the discussion seemed so go-for-it, and they said that there was slim to little useful information there that wasn't already mentioned in the main article; I just felt it was alright. When I have the time for it, I'll go look into the old contents of the articles again. Wilhelmina Will 20:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Price (surname), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Price (disambiguation). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 23:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

In a case like that, it's really important that you actually move the article, rather than copy-and-paste the contents, because that looses the contribution history (which is a GFDL requirement). I'm going to be moving back the article to and delete the new one to make room for a correct move, after which you'll be able to create the disambiguation page. — Coren ^(talk) 00:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The context is entirely immaterial, the requirement that all contributors to an article are preserved across forks and move is a sine qua non requirement of the GFDL (you are, of course, welcome to check with the larger communities around WP:SCV and WP:CP). At any rate, except for the movement of the edit history, the net effect will be exactly the same, so I'm not sure I understand where your concerns lie?

You can, by the way, avoid the problem entirely by moving the article, then editing the redirect that was left in its place into the disambiguation— that's even less trouble for you since it would usually avoid the trouble of the cut-and-paste to begin with. — Coren ^(talk) 00:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

There you go. All done.  :-) Sorry for the temporary inconvenience. Happy editing! — Coren ^(talk) 00:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

(I'm going to keep the conversation on my talk page since you seem to prefer it there. — Coren ^(talk) 00:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the information I was not aware of the specifics of the guideline and have reverted my edit. [[Guest9999 (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)]]Reply

Top of the morning to ya ENeville: Thanks for contacting me about the issue you addressed. Its always the best way to avoid any little problems that may arise, since I've been editing the article a whole lot (along with the director's other notable short White Mane). Since both films are being re-released, well now, I'm trying to see if I can get both articles mentioned on DYK. He Ha! I'll be adding to the director's article as well, and make it a total package!

I've run across the issue before, in a different language--Spanish--since I've edited tons of Argentine films. See my User Talk Page. I was once messaged by a serious user: "Just to note that the convention in the Spanish language is that only the first word in a title and proper nouns are capitalized, so where we have an article at the Spanish-language title instead of at a commonly-used English-language translation we should capitalize accordingly." I assume this is true for French, Italian, and Portuguese.

SO: You are right: Ballon (proper noun), rouge (adjective). I'll change accordingly, and will follow this protocol in all the Argentine films I've edited/follow. See my User page.

I wanted to use all caps like in the English language.

So it should be, I argued: Le Ballon Rouge. Yet, I checked Encyclopedia Britannica, and discovered I was flat WRONG!

Yet: Check out this link from the French Red Balloon site you mentioned. The French site uses my preference in the whole article. Makes me go mmmmmmmmm. Best to ya, Luigibob 14:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)Talk to Luigibob!Reply

 

A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I left a response there. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

More responses have been left there. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you reverted my edits on cask ale, citing a concern about use of a single term. I think that this was abrupt, given that the terms cited were a small part of the totality of my edits, which included a number of wikifying links. ENeville (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. I clearly didn't read the rest of your edits properly - I have no objection to them. Sorry. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was surprised to find that you reverted my latest edit to Equisetopsida. Firstly, because of the specific cautions against reverting generally, stated in both WP:Etiquette and Help:Reverting. Secondly, because my edit was an attempt at compromise, responding to concerns you raised in your previous edit comment; and that I explained such in my edit comment and, further, expressly suggested a path of negotiation. By contrast, your reversion summary stated that my contribution "adds nothing". Respectfully, I do not find that this embodies either the spirit or specifics of WP:Etiquette.

The goal of my edit was to add context to the introduction to better facilitate understanding and appreciation of the subject, specifically evolutionary context. I have made another edit in an additional attempt to pursue this end, and look forward to a collaborative process reflecting the benefits of collective contribution that have made Wikipedia so successful. ENeville (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

All that you added to the text was that the class was "ancient". First, this is true of all classes of plants. Second, "ancient" means many different things in different contexts. The word thus added no useful information or context to the page. You have therefore not achieved your stated goal of adding context.

Your subsequent addition of "primordial" is (if anything) a worse addition. These were not the first plants. In fact, the Equisetopsida first appeared more than 100 million years after the earliest evidence of land plants, so they cannot qualify as "primordial". --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why is it that saying the Equisetopsida are "ancient" is so important to you? The Fish are not labelled as "ancient", neither are the Lizards or even the Vertebrates. The Mollusca and Animals are not described as "ancient". So, what makes the Equisetopsida ancient that doesn't make these other groups ancient? Consider also that Ancient Rome and Mesopotamia are described as "ancient". Do you maintain that the Equisetopsida are of an age comparable with the cultures of Rome and Mesopotamia? --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know about that. As you might have seen, I haven't been on Wikipedia much recently, so I hadn't noticed. Leebo ^T/C 18:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am aware of this. Please refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Parsi_people#The_word_.22Parsi.22

It is one of the "multiple meanings" and it does "intended to take readers to other pages for actual information" "as quickly as possible". (Gta40 (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC))Reply

Your edits look very good now and your knowledge and expertise are quite welcome. It was simply the deletion of the list of species that I didn't feel assisted the article. Badagnani (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Re: your pedantectomy on this article: Bravo! (or brava, as the case may be). Many of the botanical articles in Wikipedia are in need of similar treatment, as you probably know! Kostaki mou (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

It would not have been simple to revert the 3 parts, at least, of your edit that i disagreed with, but i could and did label my edit clearly so you could tell what I objected to. I think that was reasonable.

I appreciate that you were clear in your followup Talk page note about your reasoning for removing two of the NRHP entries. There are all kinds of incorrect reasons which others come up with, some invoking MOSDAB nonspecifically and incorrectly, and it can take time to come to an understanding of what they are driving at. doncram (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I thought you might want to contribute to the discussion on the pg above. Thanks, Boleyn3 (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I did actually screw up, although not in the DABRL department :) What I did was to replace "Gari, Russia" (which had incoming links) with "Gari, Sverdlovsk Oblast" (which is correct per WP:NC:CITY#Russia), but I got distracted and forgot to change the incoming "Gari, Russia" links to "Gari, Sverdlovsk Oblast". No wonder you removed the latter again. That is now fixed. I also restored the "other rural localities" line (because otherwise the WP:NC:CITY#Russia requirements for the link to the Sverdlovsk Oblast urban-type settlement are not satisfied), but moved it to a dedicated set index (along with the Sverdlovsk Oblast entity), which is now linked to from the dab. Anyway, thanks for pointing out the original mistake, and hopefully the situation is now resolved. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:35, August 18, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reverting many attempted summary moves of mushroom articles away from common names. That was greatly appreciated. Badagnani (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I reverted your edit of Speed of Sound. I'm not sure which part of WP:LEDE is being violated, but in defining the speed of sound, I think we should avoid using the terms "speed" and "sound". Maybe there is a better way of wording it. Spiel496 (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

ENeville, I'm a graduate student at the University of Maryland working with the EOL and hoping to better understand the integration of Wikipedia content into EOL (and visa versa). I've noticed the important and unique role that you play in Wikipedia related to species pages (specifically TOL & fishes) and am hoping that you will let me interview you to get your thoughts on the subject. If you are willing, send me an email at kprocita at umd dot edu and we can set up a call. Thanks. Kprocita (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Since the RS:X Windsurf Class is now the Olympic Board for the 2012 Olympics I like to give the board a separate Article again. Like all other classes since 1900. I know the page is merged into Neil Pryde but I think this decision must be reversd now the situation is different.NED33 (talk) 12:20, 20 April 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. Courcelles (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please note that MOS:DP definitely does not require that every entry on a disambiguation page be given some description. Specifically, the guideline says: "The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary."

Your recent edits to Orange suggest that you may be misunderstanding this point. For example, I can't really see how "Orange (bicycles), a bicycle maker" is an improvement on "Orange (bicycles)", but it does make the page's text denser and harder to easily skim. Propaniac (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Your edit summaries indicated that you believed you were conforming the page to the MOS, but the MOS says not to use more description than necessary, which indicated a misunderstanding. If you don't agree with that part of the MOS, then you can suggest that it be changed, or you can ignore it, or both, but I was pointing out a discrepancy between your edit summary and what you were actually doing. No, I didn't look at any of your other edits, and I don't believe I was unnecessarily rude or accusatory; what I said was that your edits "suggest that you may be misunderstanding this point", which I think is both true and fair, whether or not you actually are misunderstanding it. Propaniac (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it's clear from your edit that you are familiar with much of the MOS, and the fact that you made many changes and I only sought to discuss one with you would reasonably indicate that I have no objection to your other changes. If you would expect me to throw you a parade because you made some improvements to a disambiguation page, well, someone sure owes me a hell of a lot of parades. I brought up this one issue because your other changes indicate that you want to comply with the MOS, so I thought you might appreciate knowing that you're not following it in this one respect, at least in my view (and as far as I can tell, in your own view as well, since the rationale you've provided is contradictory to the MOS, but you're more concerned with berating me for my incredibly harsh and damaging criticism, so whatever). Propaniac (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Hello ENeville! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 8 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Graef Crystal - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

That was a technical error on my part. Your edit was fine, I was attempting to undo the previous editor's POV edits. Kurdo777 (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK ENeville. Let's just work this out. You are making a lot of assumptions about me and being very personally insulting. It is not constructive to preach at me or insult me or attribute any other sort of personal motive to me. You do not know me nor I you and so that sort of tone is not helpful. (I will attempt here to avoid making any characterization of your motives or emotional state, confining myself to "I" statements...)

1. There's a difference between edit summaries, which are, by their nature, terse and impersonal, and a joking talk page comment, which needs to be lighter because it IS more personal.
2. I believe you are personally attacking me because it appears (to me) that for some reason you are very upset with my reverting of ONE disambig edit when you DID change some stuff in a way that made it inaccurate. I don't even think I was being snotty to you in the edit summary at the time, it was not my intent at least, and my opinion is you are making a mountain out of a molehill. All I said was basically "reverting, try again" I really do fail to see why you got so upset over that. (and if you were not upset, then please recommend a more suitable description). However, if I inflicted some sort of personal wound, then work with me here and explain.
3. But what has me the most irritated is WP:ASK: instead of taking your issues directly to me at the time, you complain to NYB, who then comes out of the blue to attack me on my talk page (I'd never even heard of this user) and I only found out because I came over to NYB to reply to his dogpiling, only to discover that you appear to have instigated it!
4. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of these wiki-dramas over little things when what I like to do best is edit articles and contribute actual content. I watchlist 1500 articles because either I've contributed to them or they're tagged in a wikiproject where I am very active (and someone needs to be on vandal patrol for coffin bone!). I'm aware of users with thousands more. I'm almost to the top 1000 contributors to wiki and glad to be in such company, but I'm hardly the crazed perfectionist you accuse me of being.

So, I prefer to let bygones be bygones and just call it good. But if you wish to discuss, then we can discuss. Let me know. Montanabw^(talk) 21:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Note - the above posting follows from discussion on User talk:Montanabw (later removed) and User talk:Notyourbroom. ENeville (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh EN, that was SOOOO three weeks ago. Let it go, dude. Montanabw^(talk) 19:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK. I have tried reason, negotiation and humor. All have failed. So here's the deal. You appear to still be upset over a revert I did almost a month ago to a disambiguation page where you misinterpreted my edit summary as somehow ill-intentioned, when it was not. Ultimately, the issue was resolved by an overall improvement to the disambiguation page in question. Once the issue was dead, at least in my mind, I removed the irrelevant threat from my talk page (and this is not a crime, we can edit our out user pages) If you feel some sort of apology is needed, then I'm sorry if I was grumpy a month ago and if my edit summary sounded flippant. It that is inadequate and you still seem to want something that involves my head on a plate, and you are not going to get it. You DID screw up some definitions, and I was irritated. You are a wikipedia veteran, as am I, and if you don't mind, I'd now like to go back to editing and maintaining articles. THIS IS OVER. LET IT GO. I shall watchlist this talk page in case it's not over so that you may respond to me here. I have no interest in having you further complain that I am removing your comments from my own talk page. So put your comments here on your own page and you can keep them as long as you'd like. Montanabw^(talk) 17:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I reverted your edit in total because, as my summary said, it contained too many inaccuracies. The fact that there are multiple classes is covered, and I don't see why it should be in the lead - it is commonplace in motor sport. There are no constructors' or drivers' championships at Le Mans, although it has formed part of such championships. I'm all for fixing edits where possible, but I wasn't left with much to fix. Sorry. --Ian Dalziel (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Textron Defense Systems, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this:   which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Chuglur (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I brought the issue of including a citation in the lead with a post at the article's talk page. Dan56 (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Like that? --Falcadore (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I was working on the article Unified Power Format when I realized that there are already two stub articles on esentially the same subject. IEEE P1801 is the group who proposed versions that were published in 2008. When it was approved, the first publication was under the name IEEE Standard 1801-2009. We normally do not have separate articles for the proposed drafts of things and the final publications of them. Since the format existed both before and after the standardization effort, I think it would be more readable as a single article in chronological order. Even, say, popular books do not get separate articles on their early drafts. There could easily be a third or fourthversion, for example, published either by IEEE or another group. The 2008 group and 2009 document will certainly not get any more notable as time progresses, but the format itself might. I do see you once thought they should be merged but then changed your mind, so any comments at Talk:Unified Power Format#Three way merge would be appreciated. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Nobody objected so I did it. W Nowicki (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Would you like to add your thoughts to a discussion regarding cited material and synthesis for the article Speak Now? Dan56 (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

You may have evil in your username, but the {{otheruses}} tag at the top of Crocs was worthy of a

 

Lexein has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

. --Lexein (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello, could you please stop tagging those articles and finish the discussion at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink page? The proposals you are making aren't that simple. Please read the article that you are suggesting these be moved to an you will see that the article is not a list of burger king products, but an actual article about the development, history and manner in which the company handles the products it sells. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I understand that you are working in good faith, but the structure of the Burger King products article does not work with what you are proposing. Merging those articles into it really isn't a simple procedure, as it isn't a simple list of products that the company sells. Take a few minutes and read it, and you will see what I mean. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

List of Burger King products can be changed from a redirect. History of Burger King used to be a redirect that pointed to Burger King before I made use of the page. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi ENeville, I'm a bit confused about the rationale behind the changes to the Rita Hayworth article. In September I overhauled the article, copy editing and adding refs, mostly focusing on the biographical narrative. In 'late career' it says "After the collapse her marriages to Judson (1942) and Aly Khan (1951) Hayworth returned to America". This makes no sense unless we have a brief mention of the marriages and divorces earlier on. Were you objecting because the marriages and divorced are covered again in 'marriages' later on or something else? Thank you. Span (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have answered on my talk page. I think your re-addition today works well. Span (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you recently edited Canon (fiction), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Franchise (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) 11:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for supporting my requested moves (Philippine Cobra to Philippine cobra; Red Spitting Cobra to Red spitting cobra). I really do appreciate it. I supported your request to move PLoS ONE → PLoS One. I have two more requested moves under the date January 9, 2012. The first one is Naja atra to Chinese cobra (this is by far the most common English vernacular name for this species) - hope I can have your support (as per WP:COMMONNAME). The second one under the same date (Jan. 9) is Naja sputatrix to Javan spitting cobra (this one is a none issue as this is by far the most common vernacular name for this species). I would greatly appreciate your support (per WP:COMMONNAME for both). Bastian (talk ★ contribs) 18:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you recently edited Social news, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Posts (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) 10:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, ENeville. You have new messages at Talk:Periodic trends.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Double sharp (talk) 10:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

you should do the honors for the last undo/revert. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you recently edited Air conditioner inverter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Compressor (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) 10:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you recently edited Rabbit test, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Follicular and Maturation (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) 11:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Douchi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Fermented

Vigna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cultivated

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, we're trying to figure out your intent with this edit. If you could explain, it would help us understand what you were trying to do. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello, again. I am disheartened to see that you ignored my request for discussion, preferring instead to use the edit summary of your revert to communicate. I'm afraid that isn't acceptable. We're not robots here, and we don't mindlessly follow the MOS guidelines. Please use the article talk page to communicate in the future, otherwise I will have to escalate this matter. Viriditas (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Any reply to this question about citation tag? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Any reply to these points? --207.225.131.140 (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Rubin Steiner requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Kurepalaku (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heliodorus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greek (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) 11:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You wrote: I noticed that you reverted my edit on Rule 34. Please note WP:ROWN: reverting drives away editors. Nobody likes having their contribution negated. ENeville (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If you look carefully, I did try to fix the grammar where you'd pointed out the error. Note that you're complaining that I reverted what was mostly a deletion. The "8-bit code" portion is important; it's an integral part of how numbers are assigned to automata rules. (Possibly due to Wolfram?) DavidHobby (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Just wonder the reason for adding a notability tag on this article? Could you be kind and give a reason for the tag. Prillen (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

(moved from User talk:Prillen)I marked New Small Family with a notability tag because it doesn't seem to meet the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability. For example, I'm not sure any of the linked independent sources (not VW), even used the term "New Small Family". ENeville (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I do not really understand your "independent sources". I do not know that much about it, but would this do as source for you? And for notability - it is no different from the other platforms I guess... Prillen (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Re "independent sources" and notability, from Wikipedia:Notability:

This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.

ENeville (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am really sorry, but I can not see your point. Is it the lack of sources or the notability you see as a problem?Prillen (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

There are many sources about the subject, and as one of four (eventually, when the old platform types are out of production) platforms from the worlds second largest automobile maker I find it difficult to see the article as not notable. Of course could all the VWGroup platforms be in one article, but this is already done with lists and if you look at a older platform like Volkswagen Group B platform it is apparent that one article for all platforms would become too long. Therefore have I removed your tag. Prillen (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that misunderstanding - I was discussing the particular article all along... Prillen (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I see that you moved Interplanetary Transport Network to Interplanetary transport network last September, citing MOS:CAPS and WP:TITLEFORMAT. I believe that this was wrong: Interplanetary Transport Network is indeed a proper noun: "in its primary application refers to a unique entity, such as London, Jupiter, Sarah, or Microsoft"; it is not "a common noun, which usually refers to a class of entities (cities, planets, persons, corporations), or non-unique instances of a certain class (a city, another planet, these persons, our corporation)". There is only one Interplanetary Transport Network (the Solar System's); its name is not a precise description, but rather an interesting phrase someone came up with to describe the phenomena (see the Big Bang). In addition, the capitalized version is by far the commoner usage: if you look at the WP articles that link to the two capitalizations (ignoring article lists, user pages, talk pages and redirects) there are a total of five links to Interplanetary transport network, but 110 links to Interplanetary Transport Network. Googling turns up similar ratios.

I plan to move the page back to Interplanetary Transport Network, but wanted to check with you first. Thoughts? -- Dan Griscom (talk) 11:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your assent, and for reminding me to fix the capitalization within the article. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Category:Espionage charges for leaking under Obama, 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. Cgingold (talk) 03:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You participated in a previous discussion that led to changes in this policy. There is a current discussion at WT:LEAD#MOS:BOLDTITLE and its application to specific situations further concerning that policy and its application, including the changes made. You may be interested in the new discussion, as the previous changes have been brought up there. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello, ENeville, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on Tautology (language), appears to be directly copied from http://wikipedia.sfstate.us/Tautology_(rhetoric). Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Tautology (language) if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Orestes (name) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Redundant, a disambig page like Orestes (disambiguation). No references either.

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. ɱ (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC) 23:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have replied to you at my talk page. Jsmith1000 (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oxidation number, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Element (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) 10:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi ENeville. Are you planning on participating in the notability discussions at Talk:Federal Data Services Hub and Talk:National databases of United States persons? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

As I already indicated to you, I think your tagging those articles for notability was without foundation, as the they are so clearly notable. I do not see a need to comment further at this time. ENeville (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

We've had a little more discussion at Talk:Mass surveillance#Relevance of databases and would welcome your feedback. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cereal 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:

• grass]], in the [[Monocotyledon|monocot]] family [[Poaceae|Poaceae, also known as Gramineae]]),<ref>The seeds of several other plants, such as [[buckwheat]], are also used in the same manner as

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

You were involved in a move request at this article. A second request to move this article from United States v. Microsoft Corp. has been opened. A previous move request was closed 45 days ago with the move to the current title. Interested editors may weigh in at Talk:United States v. Microsoft Corp.#Requested move 2. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 06:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for your dab editing. Question, on MOS:DAB#Organizing_long_lists_by_subject_sections how many is "longer" on "On longer lists, section headings should be used instead of, or in addition to, bold headings. Using more than one level may be necessary, as on Aurora (disambiguation). Always use ==Level two== as the highest-level header. Section headings should not include links." I have been thinking that when 4 or 5 are in a section clear ==Level two== sectioning is better than simply 'bold. Any idea if there is a rule on this? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Walter Krämer. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have started a discussion that may interest you at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#WP:BOLDTITLE and election articles. Anomalocaris (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, ENeville. In December 2011 you participated at the discussion which resulted with moving the Academi article to its current title. There is a ongoing RfC which is related to that move. Your input is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

My comment had been added before you closed the discussion, over at the Constellis Holdings talk page, but in moving the page back it got deleted. I have re-inserted it.Scott P. (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

You made a mistake in the syntax of the redirect. See [3]. Regardless, I have fixed it. Have a good day! Piguy101 (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited GWR 4100 Class, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain. 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) 11:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

that you think that your "Please don't revert valid editing" rant on my talk page was not given due consideration. I did consider it carefully, and concluded that your complaint was unjustified. The original edit was not a good one, and by reverting it I had improved wikipedia. Reverting is a necessary and very common practice here; it is used both for vandalism and for various types of blunders. I sometimes revert my own edit when I realize that it was a mistake. There is nothing inherently wrong with reverting per se as you are now arguing. I have removed your latest addition to my talk page because I consider it to be demoralizing. Please feel free to remove this from your own talk page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Previous discussion. ENeville (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Continued discussion. ENeville (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

... caused by poor design of mobile user interface and a fat finger. And mobile editor won 't currently scroll down in edit mode , so I can't put this note in right place. Apologies. PamD 06:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello ENeville; From your Talk page comment on Talk:Law from 1-2 months ago, I did follow-up and post an edit based on your suggestion. In looking further at the article's later sections, it appears that a large number of them seem to give long elaborations to define law based on Case Book studies typically used by first year law students still learning law. Do you have a view on the use on these case study discourses which extend definitions of basis terms in law beyond simple definitions. Can they be abridged to give a cleaner version of simple definitions of basic delineations of law? The name of the article is not "Defining law through casebook examples", which is nonetheless the current form of a large part of the main body of the article. Cheers. FelixRosch (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Given your activity on the WP: Revert_only_when_necessary essay page, I'd invite your input on a recent edit of that essay that was, very ironically, instantly reverted. See the talk page [4] if you wish to participate.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Species abbreviation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Augurar (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've started a discussion at Talk:Westfield Derby about moving articles to "Intu" X and I'm only notifying you as you participated in a previous move,
BTW sorry if you got a ping earlier - Something went wrong so figured I'd just post this to everyone instead, Fun times!  ,
Anyway thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

Articles that you have been involved in editing—Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity—have been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Nessie (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shamai Leibowitz 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/Shamai Leibowitz 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. Shrike (talk) 09:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article In My Lifetime: A Presentation of the Nuclear World Project 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/In My Lifetime: A Presentation of the Nuclear World Project 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.

SL93 (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Pygmalion (name) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability, fails WP:NNAME, no sources given.

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. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply