• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3

---

Recently archived talk page. Feel free to post below

Why was the "Hard Rain" article removed? Ray (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)RayBeckerman[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Montanabw"

Hey censor- My revision to Chris Wheelers page was correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.151.82.174 (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your last edit summary, you said We can't downplay how graphic and, well, sick some of this stuff is. That would be like saying "people died in WWII". Please note the following: giving something (in this case a press release) undue weight is a violation of WP:NPOV (a press release is not exactly a world war); a link to the press release is sufficient for those readers who want details; and there is a CAMPAIGN article to discuss the campaign (notice the "main article" tag at the beginning of the section); that is where details are supposed to go. The campaign section in the Webb article is supposed to be a high-level summary.

I'm also posting somewhat similar comments on the talk page; feel free to respond there or here, or both; I'm not going to mention your edit summary there, however. John Broughton | Talk 13:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. There seems to be a tendency for people to reject an analogy because the two sides of it are not exactly the same. The point I was trying to make was that the details are important in that they indicate the degree of graphicness in these novels. To link to it and require the reader to read through it is not nearly as helpful as stating it directly in the article, just as explaining the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles is much more helpful than linking to the original document. I can't think of any reason why you wouldn't want this information to be included other than because of a partiality to Webb or a desire to censor Wikipedia. Is it not more poignant (and accurate) to speak of the horrible scene rather than to speak of "incestuous sexual contact" or "sexual relations with his son"? AdamBiswanger1 19:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I very much believe in linking to original documents. But I prefer to say "graphic sexual details", if that is the case (and WP:RS is being used to support those words) and then let the reader follow the link, if he/she is so inclined, rather than stick vivid details from an adult novel into the middle of a biographical article that may well be read by a twelve-year old [who might not be inclined to follow the link]. Perhaps that makes me old-fashioned; so be it. I'd say the same thing about Lynne Cheney and her "lesbian love affair, brothels and attempted rapes";[1] political party has nothing to do with it.

As for a partiality to Webb, I personally think it's totally absurd (and an act of desperation on the part of the Allen campaign) to hold an author responsible for what is in his/her fictional writings, particularly those set in the past -- but I've haven't expressed that opinion in the talk pages, and I've tried to keep it out of my edits. If it's a controversy, that is a fact, and deserves to be included.

Regarding analogies, some are enlightening and some are totally off the mark. It's probably not particularly useful to debate where on the spectrum yours falls. John Broughton | Talk 00:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I missed your RfA! Will you use your new Admin powers to block me if I go into the archive and add a Support? Seriously, congratulations! I have no doubt you will be a great Admin. Also, thanks for your kind note when my father was having heart surgery. He's finally back at home, and I'm finally back on WP. See you in the trenches :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DOC! Welcome back-- I just got back from playing football outside and I'm filthy, so I need to take a shower, but I'm glad to see you back (and you father). Adminship is fun, and I like being able to block people and intimidate them. AdamBiswanger1 19:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You recently protected[2] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 02:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just protecting it from IP/new user moves after having unprotected it completely, robot man. AdamBiswanger1 02:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to know I'm on your watchlist; that was some quick work. Of course I'll be LMAO if you, Mr. Admin, get the same warning :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to AN/I to report a troll making some vague legal threats on multiple pages but it looks like you might be online right now. Would it be improper to bring it to your attention? If you are willing to look at it, please review the last 3 or 4 "contributions" from this editor. Otherwise, let me know and I'll bring it to AN/I. Thanks. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 02:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So how bad is the situation? If he's just started acting this way, I was thinking about leaving this message: Before the situation worsens, I'll do as the above user did and remind you that we are not censored. The facts, regardless of how obscene, will be part of Wikipedia. It has also come to my attention that you have been "reminding" people of the law regarding child pornography or something of that sort. This may be construed as a a legal threat, and most certainly as a case of incivility given the way in which you've voiced your opinions. So, before this gets worse (maybe resulting in a penalty, I'd ask you to contact me or any other editor in good standing for a way to resolve the issue, rather than continuing in the same manner.

Think it would be appropriate? AdamBiswanger1 03:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems perfect, especially combined with the first warning, which was a brilliant excercise in civilty and good faith. If he is really interested in contributing here, your warning will certainly steer him in the right direction; if not, then at least he was warned. Thanks for looking into this; I hope I didn't tear you away from anything...--Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 03:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, he's actually got a mild deluge of relatively gentle warnings. If you think it would be like snowballing him, don't feel like you're obligated to pile on. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 03:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, too late.

That seems perfect, especially combined with the first warning, which was a brilliant excercise in civilty and good faith. If he is really interested in contributing here, your warning will certainly steer him in the right direction; if not, then at least he was warned. Thanks for looking into this; I hope I didn't tear you away from anything...--Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 03:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all-- I'm just reading The Onion listening to my roommates blaring rap. Yea let me know if this guy gets any worse. I titled the message "Vagina/pornography/children". That should get his attention-- Yea these kinds of things usually end up at arbcom, I think... AdamBiswanger1 03:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone crosses the WP:NLT line in a big way, it doesn't even get to ArbCom...the perma-block can be almost instant. Part of what caught my interest is that I had just spent some time reading through an WP:NLT case that went exactly that way; an editor made 3 or 4 explicit threats on their own Talkpage and got shutdown practically mid-diatribe. Happily, this one is nowhere near that volatile and I'm pretty sure you got his attention :) Thanks Adam. So how is life as an Admin anyway? Do you make your roommate call you "Sir" now? --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 03:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir-

Ok, I am contacting you.

Which country in the world shows their teenage children pictures of erect male genitals?

That Wikipedia chooses to do so when I can find no group of democratically elected, theocratic, authoritarian, or oligarchic government that allows it should at least speak to MY point. Please, if there are a group of school children that are shown these images, let me know what it is, otherwise, you are "breaking new ground" and telling the rest of the world that it is wrong. Do you show these pictures to your own children? No, you are a freshman in college, and I WAS ONE ONCE TOO. Have some children and see how you feel.

Xchanter 03:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Xchanter[reply]

I almost agree with you. However the manner in which you are addressing the situation, namely by writing in all caps and suggesting legal recourse is what you need to address. You can try to persuade people to your viewpoint, but please do so civilly. Your best option is probably to argue that this is not censoring, or that this is a case in which the obscenity is so great that a minor measure to make it invisible to children would be proper. AdamBiswanger1 03:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed and appreciate your response, and will do my best to remove the caps. It is my opinion that any retail outlet in the US should be able to sell a printed version of this site. I do not think that is the wrong way to go. That would not allow it to be sold in all countries, but it would be a good step forward. The baseline here appears to be the unpublishable, which I find unacceptable.

Xchanter 04:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC) Xchanter[reply]

I will look at the link you mentioned, but it is my intention to fix THIS link. My best wishes for your studies. Wolfram's book "A New Kind of Science" should be essential reading for you. It took me twice to get what the Principle of Computational Equivalence meant. Work it out for yourself.

My best wishes for your future,

Xchanter 05:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Xchanter[reply]

Hi. I'm wondering whether you can help me out regarding Xchanter (talk · contribs) (since you've been involved with him also). I have tried to engage him and explain to him the rationale for inclusion of pictures in the Penis article. Honestly, I think I've remained civil, although he seems to disagree (and do let me know if you also believe I crossed the line). But given his last message on my talk page [3] I just know I will lose my cool if I answer back, so your help and advice would be appreciated. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson 05:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xchanters responses to the warnings seem to confirm my initial diagnosis of trollishness. Using formalities like "Dear Sir" at the head of an insulting post indicates that he's really missing the point. Sorry I dropped this on your plate Adam, but hey, that's what they pay you the big $$$ for, right? --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Xchanter has been blocked for 24 hours. At this point he is being watched by at least one Admin and probably more. Thanks for your efforts. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 06:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta tell you guys I'm really on the fence here. Firstly, in terms of the issue itself, I sort-of agree with him. Would using a linkimage be so bad? Is this an issue of censorship, or an issue of hiding a graphic image from those who don't want to (or shouldn't)see it? From those who argue the "Wikipedia is not censored" argument, I get an impression that they imagine themselves being bravely radical, heroically opposing those censors who want to burn our books and make our girls wear skirts down past the knee. Perhaps we need to realize is that there is not a threat of Big Brother, and we need to stop imagining Fahrenheit 451 when someone utters the word "censorship". This is a case of putting an image behind a door; and not a locked one.

Secondly, in terms of how he has been addressing the issue, I certainly see legal threats and incivility. Perhaps the block was justified, perhaps not. However after talking to him, I did see an ability for rational discussion, and all the block seems to be doing is give him an impression of a rigid, bureaucratic Wikipedia. It also seems to be punitive. Maybe I've missed some of his incriminating contribs (the worst I've seen are the legal threats), but I'm slightly sympathetic towards him, and I'm probably going to write some encouraging words to assure him that we're not all a bunch of assholes (not to suggest that either of you were acting that way). AdamBiswanger1 15:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you offering Xchanter some support and encouragement at this point. I think that kind of thing is an important follow-up to the warn/block process, but it almost never happens. For any editor that's not totally incorrigable, some positive reinforcement and open dialogue will almost certainly help them become a more productive contributor. I know I had become quite agitated when this flurry of activity occurred; the issue of legal threats is my personal "zero tolerance" issue. While statements like "I'll contact my congressman" are pretty clearly not a real threat, any posting to the effect of "you can/will be arrested for saying that" is absolutely intolerable. WP will never succeed in it's goals if individuals are able to use legal intimidation to quash not only our articles and images, but the very conversations between editors. Even so, I feel like I came close to incivility myself in this case (possibly even crossed the line, but I don't think so). I'll try to learn from this and restrain myself somewhat in future. I've considered leaving Xchanter a note of apology and encouragement as well, but I'm a little ambivalent about it. At any rate, I wanted to thank you and the others who were involved for your patience and good work on this; hopefully the situation will improve. FYI - I'd like to discuss "Censorship and Linkimage" as a seperate topic but I need more coffee first. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 17:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xchanter, your block will expire soon (or maybe it already has). Consider this not an assurance that Wikipedia is not as rigid as it seems; you've touched on an issue dear to many, and that is censorship. Though unfortunately, "censorship" in terms of book burning and Big Brother has been woefully muddled with censorship in terms of nudity and obscenity, and the liberal mindset has been applied to the latter with as much absolutism and ferocity as the former. Hopefully that doesn't sound too bitter. But, I invite you to return, assuming that you tone down the incivility, and eliminate altogether the legal threats. Just browse around some discussion pages to get used to the pattern and tone of interaction between editors. AdamBiswanger1 15:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a note of clarification, the block had nothing to do with his thoughts on censorship. It was a disruption block because the user was making repeated legal threats, attempting to intimidate users on their talk pages, and repeatedly blanking warnings against that exact behavior. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no objections from me. AdamBiswanger1 16:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your rationale for restoring Xchanter's legal threats. You state that they are not at any one person. They are, actually, targetting everyone who has edited those pages, and it is quite clearly a legal threat. If you look at his contribution history, he has singled out a few editors in specific and his text appears to be attempting to menace them. As a result, I'm removing it again not because of 'censorship', but because it's the right thing to do. WP:LEGAL exists for a reason, and I hope you'll reconsider reverting the change. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo beat me to it (see below). - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, he is indefinitely blocked but can post to his talkpage, but let's not taunt him to do so. Secondly, it is normal when an editor makes a legal threat that they be blocked. If he wants to be unblocked he can request to do so, but we don't go around reposting his legal threat for him. Thanks.--MONGO 21:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I don't see any reason to argue. AdamBiswanger1 20:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You recently protected[4] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 19:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, robot, I was unprotecting it and ensuring that it would not be able to be moved by an anon. AdamBiswanger1 20:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you copied over from another wiki's article on logic were made to a significantly outdated version of the one found here. It also contained inaccurate information (e.g., that there is a logic with a truth value of "unknown") and had wikilinks to non-existent categories (e.g., "Category:CZ Live"). I reverted your changes because of these problems. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 19:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Simoes. Logically speaking, you seem to be overstating the degree of change I exacted upon the article. Let me address each of your points individually. As to whether or not there is a 3rd truth value in some logic, please see Ternary logic. It seems to be very obscure (the only mention I've heard of it is through a passing comment by my TA). Secondly, you used the plural to overstate the situation relating to irrelevant categories. I inserted a single category that did not belong, but in the course of doing so I clarified the opening paragraph significantly for those who are not philosophy graduate students (you) or philosophy majors (me). Anyway, once I get some spare time, I'll try to work out a compromise. Thanks, AdamBiswanger1 23:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't address my first point; videlicet, you effectively reverted to a month-old version of the article and made changes from there. As for your point about trivalent logics, I never claimed there to be no such thing. What I did say is that there is no trivalent logic with a truth value of "unknown" (or, at least, there is none across which I've ever come). If you could cite one, that would be great. The reliability of the ternary logic article, however, seems dubious at best (it cites exactly one source, it incorrectly labels fuzzy logic and paraconsistent logic as ternary, et cetera). Simões (^talk/_contribs) 23:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but the regardless of which version was used, either from last week or 1500 BC, it seems to me that the only relevant factor is which changes were made. We have addressed most of those, however. Again, I will make some hopefully-non-controvsial changes soon AdamBiswanger1 00:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent rewording lost the bolded link to an updated article. Could you reword again to retrieve it? Thanks, BanyanTree 22:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BanyanTree. The original version linked to Fisheries, but this doesn't really contain anyting about the situation (the study itself or its predictions) other than a paragraph. In the course of rephrasing the headline I disposed of "fisheries", and as a consequence of not having an article specifically relating to the issue, I left it without a bold link. But I see that this news is on the front page of BBC online, so maybe a new article will pop up soon? AdamBiswanger1 23:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam, There are already some comments about why an item that doesn't meet the criteria is up at T:ITNT, so I would suggest reverting the addition if the linked article isn't up to par. (I can't do so due to a solemn if silly vow that I made to myself as precondition of getting involved with ITN again.) Thanks, BanyanTree 23:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The portal needs some attention. If You have the time... feydey 15:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know : ) Things are swamped around here, so I put up half of the material a day or two ago, and completely forgot about the rest. I need to whip myself into shape with this-- I'm finding myself using boring, banal quotes and featured articles like "William Shakespeare". Thanks again, AdamBiswanger1 17:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Program Feature: Admin Coaching (needs coaches!) Admin Coaching needs coaches!!! If you are an administrator, or even a generally experienced user, do consider signing up to be a coach. Admin Coaching, now being coordinated by HighwayCello, is a program for people who want help learning some of the more subtle aspects of Wikipedia policy and culture. People are matched with experienced users who are willing to offer coaching. The program is designed for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins. What's New? The Tutorial Drive is a new Esperanza program! In an effort to make complicated processes on Wikipedia easier for everyone, Esperanza working to create and compile a list of tutorials about processes here on Wikipedia. Consider writing one! A discussion on how Esperanza relates to the encyclopedia has been started; please add your thoughts. Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.

The last AC meeting (full log) The list of proposed programs has been updated, with some proposals being archived. There is now a new program: the Tutorial Drive! Consider writing a tutorial on something you are good at doing on Wikipedia. The suggestion of adding a cohesive look to all the Esperanza pages is being considered; join the discussion if you are interested! In order to make a useful interlanguage welcome template, those involved in translation projects will be asked what English Wikipedia policies are most important and confusing to editors coming from other language Wikipedias. A discussion of Esperanza's role in Wikipedia is being held, with all thoughts of all Esperanzians wanted! Shreshth91 informed everyone that he will be leaving the Esperanza council as life is rather busy; his spot will be filled by the runner up from the last election, HighwayCello. Signed... Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, The Halo, Shreshth91 and HighwayCello 20:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.

Hi, I realize that Image:Philadelphia_wanamakergrandcourt.jpg is your fathers work. However, currently you have the imaged tagged as fair use and thus currently fail criteria #1 at WP:FUC. Is it possible to license it like the other organ images? Otherwise it should be deleted as a replaceable. Thanks, ccwaters 00:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Promotional is a fair use tag. Look over WP:TMIN and decide if there is a more suitable tag. If you have questions about your father's rights and wishes ask here: Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Let me emphasize that it is perfectly fine if you don't release it in a free license compatible with wikipedia, it just means someone else will have to drive down there and take a new picture. ccwaters 01:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hahah, I knew you'd like that bathroom. Nope, I haven't had any of those professors... I was up there over Halloween weekend. It was about as insane of a time that I've ever had. Enjoy! -newkai t-c 03:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you participated in pages related to radio. I just wanted a little bit of help to correct an article I've tried to translate from French. It's about a French independent Internet radio called Radio Blagon. If you have a bit of time to have a look at the grammar, the spelling and the general style of this article, that would be great. Thanks, Ajor 18:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I see Did you know... is a red link again. I would suggest looking into Portal:Dogs and how it simply randomizes Selected breed articles (no need for future updates). If You need help then write, feydey 13:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Complete has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I think that you have protected the page in a vandalised form (blanc page). Please have a look and revert to a previous version. Thanks 172.206.20.239 00:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks-- yea I protected it as soon as it went blank because there was a flurry of vandalism, but I fixed it seconds after that. Thanks again, AdamBiswanger1 00:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with the page Conor Oberst on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you for your understanding. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Adambiswanger1 20:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not do anything to any page!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.145.229.73 (talk • contribs)

Responded at User talk:84.145.229.73. SWAdair 06:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Any chance you can block this IP to only allow registered accounts? You and I have both been reverting. Vandalism is too slow to list at AIV. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done : ) AdamBiswanger1 03:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He came back after the block today. I see that you reverted and sprotected Chris Wheeler. Can you please do same for Howard Eskin and/or block again? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is getting really annoying, isn't he? Anyway, I protected Howard Eskin for a while, and I blocked him for 1 week. Hopefully this'll do the trick. Thanks for keeping me updated on the situation AdamBiswanger1 16:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just got back online after being off for a few days and I see that the anon is back at it. Can you please consider another block? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you may be offline, so I posted at WP:ANI. Situation resolved. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have contributed a nice picture of the Wanamaker console, thanks for this. Do you have it available in a higher resolution? Would be great to see some more details. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.111.44.74 (talk) 11:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Adam, I presumed that the link was added before the template below it was added, and the dupe link had not be noticed - so I was removing it as per Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also. It probably would be a good idea to redesign the template to make the link in there more prominent? -- Chuq 01:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adambiswanger1, several redirects to portals including The beatles portal have been nominated for deletion. This is a renewal of the previously failed deletion attempt on March 17. I'd really appreciate it if you'd share your opinion and vote on this proposal. --Melanochromis 05:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		For your efforts with pages involving poetry, I, User:Ka5hmir, hereby award you the Barnstar of High Culture. Ka5hmir 11:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Philadelphia wanamakergrandcourt.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. LaraLove^T/_C 17:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See [5]. I have restored the headline about the new species of bacteria. Bartonella rochalimae is potentially lethal (the person was saved from several weeks of medical treatment), and it comes from the Bartonella genus of proteobacteria, that is known to infect hundreds of thousands of people every year (and this is sometimes fatal). Nishkid64 (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was only officially published in the New England Journal of Medicine yesterday, so it has not been covered by that many newspapers or news websites as of now. Anyway, see [6] and [7]. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam, I was happy to get involved in a new area. I hope my activity there was useful. I mostly limited myself to ensuring that new text was properly cited. There seems to be an interesting question involving which sources can be considered reliable references for psuedoscience articles. Obviously they won't cite scientific-style peer-reviewed publications, but some of the sources in question were clearly more ...scholarly...than others. I plan to look at more articles along these lines to see if there is any consistency regarding general sourcing of info. Thanks, and I hope you're having fun! Doc Tropics 19:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there!

I'm writing to inform you that we are now forming the first local Wikimedia Chapter in the United States: Wikimedia Pennsylvania. Our goals are to perform outreach and fundraising activities on behalf of the various Wikimedia projects. If you're interested in being a part of the chapter, or just want to know more, you can:

• Contact us on IRC at #wikimedia-pa
• Join our mailing list
• Visit our blog at http://wmfpa.blogspot.com

Thanks and I hope you join up! Cbrown1023 talk 02:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to draw your attention to User:Smatprt who, in my opinion, has been intent on rewriting the Shakespeare Authorship article for the last year to promote his view that the Earl of Oxford was Shakespeare. I am only interested in article balance. See here for the list of his edits [[8]] (Felsommerfeld 16:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Good of you to post on the Shakespeare Authorship discussion page. You MUST read the Life and Times of BenJonson (a Wiki editor here) which is above your post on that page. It should tell you everything you need to know. (Felsommerfeld 21:51, 11 July

2007 (UTC))

Oh dear. Didn't you get the argument for sockpuppetry? (Felsommerfeld 23:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hi. Sorry you've been dragged into this. It's true, I have an expertise and I make edits about what I know. Felsommerfeld wrote the following about this article: "*I mean why are we even having this discussion? The guy from Stratford wrote it all, period." If he had his way there would be no article on the authorship question at all. Since he cannot kill the article he is trying to edit out anything which challenges his position, including deleting whole sections without input or discussion. Now you know...the rest of the story.Smatprt 01:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Felsommerfeld's accusations of sockpuppetry have gone way too far. He knows, as do the actual long-time editors of this article (of which he is not), that Ben Jonson and I are two very different individuals that happen to see eye to eye on the authorship issue. Feel free to investigate, research or whatever you need to do to confirm this. For starters, BenJonson lives fulltime on the east coast, I on the west. Check our IP's or whatever (I am not that technical to know how you check, but I know you can and immediately clear this up and stop Felsommerfeld from his one-man war.Smatprt 01:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smatprt is smart enough to use different IP addresses. Please check out the Shakespeare Authorship discussion about user BenJonson and read the evidence in detail. You can form your own opinion. (Felsommerfeld 01:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I have no fear! And I guarantee you will find us two different users - or block me FOREVER - I mean it.Smatprt 01:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way - thank you for the Mark Anderson reference. The article used to have many, but ALL have been cut by Felsommerfeld in the last few days. I restored some today and await your input. Best regards Smatprt 01:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's the real test of who the villain is. Type smatprt into google and read through a few pages. I'll guarantee that you'll find that he's been complained about and banned on forums not only for 3PP but also for editing without consensus. His style is to try to get those who complain about him blocked. (Felsommerfeld 02:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Adam - the status quo you refer to was what has been up on the page from Nov of last year. Only in the last 5 days have these 2 editors, and one banned sockpuppet, deleted bunches of long-standing material, all Oxfordian or Anti-Stratfordian. If you scan the article for the last 8 months, you will see that I am correct. Smatprt 03:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam - for example - there was several sections, referenced to Mark Anderson's book, that these editors have recently deleted. Properly referenced material from the same book you just added info from. Material that has been there for months and months. So you see, I am not "adding" material of any kind. I am simply trying to fight the POV deletions by several editors that believe the article should not even exist. Please explain why this white-washing of the authorship issue, by editors who want to censor material, is up to Wiki standards. I really do want to understand the reasoning behind this.Smatprt 03:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And for full disclosure - yes, I have fallen into a few edit wars and even been banned twice (one deserved and one split decision), both of which I regret. Both were with rabid Stratdordians who were attempting to make mass deletions of properly referenced material. So in this case, what is to be done? Decent relevent material simply vanishing because 2 or 3 editors work in tandem to revert together and avoid the 3R rule? Smatprt 03:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - I like what you had to say re: "Intriguing, but few of us at Wikipedia are without biases and I don't discredit them for being Oxfordian- it just means they are interested in, passionate, and informed about this subject. If they simply wish to help the encyclopedia by fine-tuning the Oxfordian viewpoint, then that is fine. But, as I'm sure you would agree, bias only becomes a problem when contributors fail to have a respect for neutrality. For example, even as a devout skeptic I still manage to have a neutral debate with Astrology enthusiasts at that article, and even though I fiercely disagree with them I manage to acknowledge WP:NPOV. Aren't they capable of this? A bias or a vested interest in something does not relegate an editor to diminished credibility. So, why discredit their contributions when their goal may well be the same as yours, to help the encyclopedia?" and I was sorry to see it go. Might you reinstate this? It really speaks to what is going on on this page. For backgroung, you might approach Alabamaboy or SingingBadger, 2 administrators who have a lot of experience with this problem on this page. Unfortuantely, both left screaming in frustration, but perhaps they will talk to you about this. Smatprt 03:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be writing so much, but you suggested " breaking down huge edits into a series of smaller ones." I tried that, readded several deleted sections, asking for discussion. None came, only continued reverts by Felsommerfeld and Hangemhigh. So what is the next step?

Adam - this is what I posted on the WS project page: "Mass deletions of material from Shakespeare Authorship Question article" As a regular editor to all things Shakespeare, you all know (and many are sickened) by my interest in the Authorship Question. My last (and first) year here at WP has been quite a learning experience, and believe it or not, the FA process for the WS page was quite an eye-opener. But many of us learned a few more things about WP, so even though the article did not achieve FA, I think one day it will and in the process has already (and will further) become a great article. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the Shakespeare Authorship article itself. For the past 8 or 9 months, the page has been relatively stable. In the last week, 2 or 3 new editors (and one unfortunate sockpuppet which has already been banned) have made mass deletions of referenced material. No big surprise - all the deletions were Oxfordian or anti-stratfordian. Now this is the page where most of the mainstream editors from the WS FA process said that the authorship information should go. Now,... that info is being deleted, section by section. Unbelievably, in their haste, these editors have even cut the stratfordain disclaimer (that academics dismiss all the alternative candidates) that I had grown to accept. Anyhow, because this is the WikiPjoject Shakespeare, I have been advised, and had already been considering, requesting that the editors of this page take a look at what is going on. Because I have resisted their deletions, they are now waging a campaign to have me declared some sort of SockPuppet for long-time editor BenJonson, even though I don't think he's made an edit for weeks or months. This accusation has been plastered on at least a dozen admin mailboxes - none of which, so far, has fallen for their game. I know the truth, I detest sockkpuppets, and I know that some clever administrator will be able to prove their accusations groundless. In the meantime, however, the page is the one that will suffer. In spite of the fact that most of you are staunch stratfordians, I have also found you to be reasonable and have a sense of fair play. I ask that you look at the talk page and bring some cool heads into the discussion. I ask that you look at the article and its format for the last 8 months, then look at the edits over the last few days. I realize some of you may want to hold your noses as you read the article, but if we are attempting to make these articles better, then the kind of attitudes and accusations and mass deletions goin on on any of these pages should be a cause of concern. Thanks for hearing me out. Smatprt 04:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you can find time to read the testimony of many aggrieved editors on the Administrator's Noticeboard. [[9]] Also here on the Fringe Theories board. [[10]] What is the procedure for completely banning Smatprt? (Felsommerfeld 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

As you may already be aware, Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its subcategories, Category:Discordian Wikipedians, Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians, Category:SubGenius Wikipedians, and others, have been deleted. That deletion is now up for review. If you have anything you'd like to say on the subject, now is the time. If you know of any other editors who might have something to say on the subject, pass the word. If, on the other hand, you are not interested in the slightest, feel free to delete this.   — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 10:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you delete the image so I can ricaricare this image including the license --A cool night green owl 14:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to complain like this and I have never really had to compain on wiki, but many Silent Hill fans are using a fan translation of a Official book only published in Japan for citations. The site is seen here where they get the translation from. Right now I am having problems w/ it on the Alessa Gillespie page, which uses a majority of sources are from this fan source. They also do not question the translation what so ever and are not citing the foreign-language original. If they cited the original, maybe I wouldn't have such a problem.

One user posted to justify this:"Unofficial translations or not, the material itself remains official. If the material contains important information on production/character conception, etc., it should be included. If we merely dismiss these translations as "unofficial," then we dismiss all information that comes originally from a language other than English; in that way, for example, we would also be dismissing the French interviews with Christophe Gans purely based on the fact that they were assessed by a third-party and translated into English, then placed as a reference within an article (translations are bound to not be 100% perfect, even when translated by creators of the series themselves due to the differences among languages, but judging a given translation by simply calling it "unofficial" and holding that against it breaks Wikipedia's neutral point of view). Furthermore, without production information, the article will never make it beyond B-class (eg. even w/ the references to the Translated Memories translations, the Silent Hill film page has gained GA+ status). The out-of-universe information is vital to separating fact from fiction in a fictional universe and in the context of writing an encylopedia article (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)). As WikiProject Video Game's featured articles (see Category:WikiProject Video games/Featured articles) demonstrate, framing points such as how the franchise has done internationally in terms of sales and the creation and development behind a character are all essential to making a good article."

But this is making me question wikipedia's reliability, as we are supposed to be an encyclopedia. Is this wrong? Or is there another way to solve this?

Xuchilbara 18:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A template you created, Template:Lysdexic, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 21:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please look at my admin request. Thanks Agwin —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:05, August 25, 2007 (UTC).

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Wikipedia, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you. Gscshoyru 17:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for welcoming me with that template, but I am actually an administrator and I'm familiar with policy. I re-added the sentence with a citation. If you still disagree, please discuss it with me on my talk page or the article talk page before removing it. Thanks, AdamBiswanger1 17:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's fine. You may want to add it back, with evidence to the reliability article -- because I removed it from there, for the same reasons. I'm a little overzealous, perhaps when watching recent changes, and looked at a from a certain viewpoint it could look like someone annoyed with wikipedia over this, and adding it to multiple articles because they were pissed. Obviously, this is not the case. Part of the problems with doing this all the time is I assume a little less good faith than I should... Gscshoyru 17:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam,

Actually, things are very much happening, thankfully - though a lot of the activity is over at the German Foundation chapter. The active page on en right now is here. As far as I understand it, the code has recently been finished and they are going into testing mode right now. We expect to see it here on en in a few months. I will be going to this conference, and I expect to know rather more after being there, since article validation is a major conference theme and several key WMF people will be at the conference. Ask me again in six weeks!

By the way, I see you're at Syracuse University - I teach at SUNY Potsdam, not so far away! Let me know if you organize any meetups over there. Cheers, Walkerma 02:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm glad to see that that there is some progress on the frontier of article validation. I've always been a supporter of the idea, but I always thought it would be struck down by those who treasure the encyclopedia's open-access to all over its reliability. I'm glad to see another Wikipedian so close- I would certainly organize, or at least participate in some kind of wiki-meeting, but I haven't heard of a single person here who is an editor! Quite strange, considering this is one of the largest and most active websites in the universe. But thank you for your response, and I'm glad to see that we are one step closer to an authoritative encyclopedia. Thanks again, AdamBiswanger1 14:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, you may want to take a look at this blog entry. Looks like things are beginning to happen. Walkerma 06:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ... Imagism is having its featured article status reviewed at the moment. It would be a shame to lose one of the few poetry FAs. Stumps 02:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, thanks for the input I respect your opinion. However your latest comment seems to have affected the list formatting somewhat - i.e. the number restarts after your comment. Can I ask you to take a look? Thanks. Ronnotel 19:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, another editor took care of it. Ronnotel 19:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All admins are automatically approved so you should already be able to use AWB. Regards, Jogers (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: MDC

Dear Adam,

Per your comments, I have added information in the stirrup section and, yes, I am the inventor of the MDC Stirrups(R). I have over 35 years of equestrian background and have been a judge at two Olympic Games.

The article clearly shows traditional stirrups and plastic stirrups in the background. The article refers to other types of stirrups and mentions their considered benefits.

I added enhanced comments regarding the lack of ergonomic tendancies of traditional stirrups and named a patented invention that overcomes some of stirrup's basic design flaws and inherent dangers. To mention a patented product is no more commercial advertising than mentioning a Peacock Stirrup, a break away stirrup, or a tapadero as the name for the enhanced stirrup is instrumental in the understanding of the feature. The MDC Stirrup can be accessed with the Patents and Trademarks Office and I hope you would consider their being called by name as no more than a reference to the invention.

If you feel that my comments are untrue, please advise as my purpose was to inform and educate as well as name the product (my invention) that remains noteworthy in the stirrup world.

Thanks for your time and attention.

MDC

Hey Adam, see my responses to all this, too. I tried to keep some legitimate edits that came in during the work of MDC, and clarified some language. I also removed the term "intelligent stirrup" from the article so no copyright problems. I am OK with also removing any other "Kleenex versus Facial Tissue" names for other designs that are in there and replae them with generic terms if they are pointed out. However, tapadero happens to be a Spanish word that is several hundred years old, so I'd hardly say that one has a copyright on it.Montanabw^(talk) 23:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the intervention in the bong, popular culture issue. just in case you miss it, I will paste my response here as well.

"fair enough, I think that as many articles have "references in popular culture" (or something similar) sections, that as long as it does not detract from the main article, and is not overly long, then it is relevant, verifiable and most importantly interesting for the reader. I have no issue with restricting that section to a few lines, and only notable references - ie. not every song that mentions bongs. I am aware of the guidelines regarding trivia sections, and because of that think it should be a minor section, and should never dominate the whole article. I also think the fact that a couple of wikipedians deleted or proposed its deletion, despite the fact that it existed for a long time does not show consensus - this is not a paper dictionary, there is no limit (within reason) on space, and to have a few verifiable, non-intrusive facts included does no harm, and in some cases might be useful for the reader. Oh and..thanks for stepping in, this was getting a little silly, in my own defence, I did try to discuss this with the other editor, but just got responses along the lines of "This one can't be integrated because it contains nothing but CRAP" and "This IS an encyclopedia, go somewhere else with crap" which did make me think that just going ahead and editing it, might be better than trying to discuss it, when all I was getting was abuse in response to my requests. Also reading "I don't have to obtain consensus before removing sections" made me think that if I did get consensus supporting my opinion, that the editor would just revert anyway, as he seems to think he does not need consensus. I considered making a complaint re. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility but wondered if talking to him about it, might be a better choice. I dont think that has got me very far as yet."Sennen goroshi 14:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your recent deletion of sources that are not RS. That particular website is so POV (and so angry) that I am surprised it has resurfaced. Presently, there are one or 2 defenders who have reverted both you and I. I don't want to break the 3R rule so I'm done for the present. Perhaps you could explain your edit on the talk page where I have recently done the same. best - Smatprt 14:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Poetry is having a revival and we are trying to determine who is still active in the project. If you are, please answer this roll call by placing an *asterisk* next to your name on the list of participants here. Thanks, Wrad 01:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adambiswanger1. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/c 22:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adambiswanger1 -- Just a note to claim that Wikipedia:WikiProject Syracuse, New York is at least somewhat revived, with a couple people contributing and a good number of new articles. See the new article list on the main webpage of the project. Hope you can return and participate! doncram (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how involved you are with Wikipedia as a whole, but here's something you might find particularly interesting: here EaglesFanInTampa 13:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to find a wikipedia administrator who would readily do an interview for a research project I am conducting from the perspective of a wikipedia insider. If you'd like to do this, please email me at goat77 (AT) gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goat77 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_gorrillas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minab_factory

Please check them out, I tagged them so ban me if I am wrong. They qualaify to be deleted.

sorry for the typos, I got wikiwork to do.

69.113.203.57 (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok if I move {{criticism}} to {{lit criticism}} to make way for a redirect of {{criticism section}}; a more generally-applicable template? I see that the lit. criticism template is used only on one article...

I see that you are not very active on WP any more so I will wait a few days before declaring "time out". --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 23:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:915h_Johannes_Gutenberg_(Gensfleisch)_statue,_Mainz,_1_Ma.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

This is my first refferal to a Wikipedia Administrator and you were one of the first on the list. My message here is that User Warren has been significantly editing the Windows 7 page without justification, and has called me "Obtuse" and "Disruptive" when I undid those edits. User Soctr has also been irked by this. I've given him three warnings and now it is time for a refferal. I think this user deserves a permanent ban on editing any page (excluding the talk page) about Microsoft Windows. A message to Warren would be nice. This letter should include a statement like this: "You are disallowed from editing Microsoft Windows Articles pages until you agree to stop inappropriate behavior. A violation of this agreement will result in a permanent ban on editing." Warren should be banned until he keeps his promise.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Warren has called me patently idiotic, all-caps, poor-grammar, and factually incorrect. He really needs to be blocked, and I've had enough of this edit war against him. I need someone like you who is an administrator to intervene. He said that I was trying to picture him as a vandal. It looks like it but I am really denouncing what he put in as vandalism. It has gone to this extent. This is the fifth time I've warned him to stop his behavior. But I am not an administrator so I need to turn to someone who is.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warren does explain how his edits are justified, although something needs to be done about his incivility and profanity. I don't think a topic ban would really help with this.

He said those things about your "attempts to brand [him] as some kind of vandal", not you. Calling an edit vandalism, and calling an editor a vandal are really the same thing.

This administrator does not edit very often, so I do not expect him to read this anytime soon. I recommend listing Warren on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard instead, but only if he disregards this. - Josh (talk | contribs) 03:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I and my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of removing/toning down few lines on 'Allegations of Human Rights violation against the Indian Army' under 'criticism of the operation' section in Operation Blue Star article, concerns include WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP & WP:V, the summary of dispute can be found at [11]. I would request you to kindly go through the article and please let us know your views/opinion at the talk page of the article so that npov, balance and undue weight concerns may be looked into and a consensual solution may be found. Thanks LegalEagle (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you talk to scarian, he is making it impossible to edit pages, he is evil and he doesn't want to talk about even. He accuses me of being Be Black Hole Sun. Please help me. --This Feels Right2 (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HIFireFoxUser2343 (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Sean O'Hare 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 person or group of people, 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Kevin (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Socionics Tcaudilllg (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Perfect article (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you.  [ mad pierrot ]  20:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Adambiswanger

I understand that years ago, you deleted the non-canon page back 2006. However, I recently ressurrected the article. I strongly feel that it is needed just as much as the canon article is. There can't be one without the other, and alot of people are not even sure what the words "canon" and "non-canon" mean. (LonerXL (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hello Adambiswanger1! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 0 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. 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 these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 939 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

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

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and long time no chat! I was wondering if you were still active here, as I had a few questions for you. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm Liria Veronesi (User:Akoha77) and, together with Paolo Massa (User:Phauly), I'm starting an empirical research on "Gender and votes in requests for adminship". For this reason, we need to know the gender of Wikipedians who were candidated to become admins.

We tried looking for the templates User:UBX/male and User:UBX/female but only 4 admins use it. We also used the API for getting the gender field in the profile but, out of 1744 admins, only around 400 have filled this field. But we would benefit from a larger coverage, i.e. possibly knowing the gender of 100% of candidates.

So, after asking for advice to 3 admins and receiving 2 positive replies (1 and 2), we decided to try to ask directly to Wikipedians.

Thus, would you be so kind to write your gender [Male / Female / Other], together with a text comment if you want, on my talk page at User_talk:Akoha77? If you prefer to send me this information privately, you can send me an email, the information will be kept confidential and never shared.

Thanks! Akoha77 (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your a asswhole —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.49.44.18 (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2011 (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 over 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 and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). 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.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Xeno (talk) at 16:54, 9 August 2011 (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 over 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 and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). 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.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Xeno (talk) at 14:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2011#September 2011

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 over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, 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 and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). 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. –xeno^talk 00:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lit criticism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magioladitis (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:914u Statue of Johann Sebastian Bach, Eisenach, GER, 22 S.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

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

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 07:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 12:53, 10 October 2014 (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) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The graduation song. Since you had some involvement with the The graduation song redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Books of the Hebrew Bible has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. B (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. B (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. B (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]