I saw your comment where you wrote: "PS This edit (and some others) of the author of all this stuff reminded me my childhood: when playing hide and seek, and nobody can find you for a long time, you get bored and make a noise to attract attention to be found....in vain..."

I'm sorry, after reading that, all I could think of was you as a kid playing hide and seek and everyone feigning to play along; only to leave you there hiding behind a tree for hours. LMFAO. By the way, Laudak, it's called promotion. And at the time when I created those wiki pages for Khanoda that's what I was doing. But then again, you're firm assessment that I would go through the time-consuming effort to create numerous pages as some kind of hoax, clearly indicates what a truly developmentally disabled, socially maladjusted, paranoid-neurotic you are. I guess after an abusive childhood where you were left "bored" and screaming from hiding places in order to be found must've played an integral part in that. Get well soon. LOL. Billbo_merkz 02:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Golden gun, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.bondunlimited.com/alphabetical/g/golden-gun-the.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

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 01:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear CorenSearchBot driver, the website in question says:

"Source: © Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses collated material from various entries taking off from the Wikipedia article James Bond."

Please update your bot to check for mirrors and acknowledgements. Therefore I removed the warning placed by bot in the article. User:Laudak

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 03:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like wikipedia bots hate me. The one above thinks I am a plagiarizer... And this one plainly hates my signature -User:Laudak

On 10 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article cigarette case, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 22:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I listed it for discussion here, which is the correct place. Feel free to contribute to the discussion. Sorry about the bureaucracy, it gets on my nerves too. the wub "?!" 18:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated your article, Neotectonics, for DYK for September 25. If you disagree with this nomination or do not like my hook, please feel free to change it however you want. Regards, --Mattisse 01:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Neotectonics, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On September 30, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Avalanche control, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1999 Athens earthquake, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 15:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Facilitating payment, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 12:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shit happens. Do you want me to slap a tag? `'Míkka 18:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Computational humor, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Great work on this article Laudak. This was a fascinating subject that I'd never heard of before! It's actually a little scary that computers are making up better jokes than I can. --JayHenry (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify:

• This page is not a listing of specific Wikipedians. It's a page of euphemisms about or referring to Wikipedians (as well as referring to Wikis and Wikipedia). As such, it doesn't belong in Category:Wikipedians.
• Category:Wikipedia Wikipediology - if you look over the category, you should see rather quickly why it's not appropriate here either.
• Category:Wikipedia as a media topic - Do you have a link showing that this list has been an article in the media? It looks simply like original research.
• Category:Wikipedia culture - You could possibly make an argument about this being added to rhis category of general essays, I suppose. But in looking over the page, it's clearly just a copy of a bunch of words taken from the urban dictionary. This isn't so much "culture", as a "List of X" page.

I previously removed the culture cat and left the media cat, I see now that that was incorrect.

I'm removing the first 3, and leaving the culture cat (for now). Be aware though that the page itself may be nominated for deletion if it doesn't develop into more than just a list of semi-associated words. - jc37 08:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a list of quite well associated words. Laudak (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on expanding the Egg Dance article. It looks like you must have spent quite some time in the library looking up all that stuff. Richerman (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today the following text was posted on Mikkai's page, who posted it on mine. I would say it ended up as a three way international collaboration - I started the ball (or the egg!) rolling, Mikkai worked hard to bring it down the field and you helped to put it in the goal; Happy Easter! Richerman (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy Easter my friend. Thanks for the nice thought of adding these festive articles! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very much appreciate your understanding of the issues involved, and taking the appropriate action! Cheers. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you check if I did everythong properly regarding my move requests I'm showing you below? Also I welcome & value your independeny opinion on the matter at hand:

    *Jewish Peril → The Jewish Peril
    - The latter is the exact, correct, title of the book/pamphlet (1920). --Ludvikus (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    
    *Final Solution → The Final Solution
    - The latter is the common usage - except[ion] to WP rules? --Ludvikus (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanx. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks again for your assistance previously. Also, I noticed your copyediting work - good job!!! I wander if you could advise where to go to propose a name change. I seem to have lost the address. Thankx. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've made a posting like so (Please advise if in correct & proper form. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)):[reply]

    [edit] 8 May 2008
    Historical Revisionism (negationism) → Historical Revisionism
          -- It's the common usage. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Brenda Biesterfeld, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenda Biesterfeld. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?  Ravenswing  18:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of IRD asset, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.leismaninsurance.com/2004%20April%20IRD%20article.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

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 (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just stopping by with wikicookies for those editors who started new articles today. --Rosiestep (talk) 07:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll needed it. I've noticed your attempt to edit Historical Revisionism - very difficult place. And I really believe - having seen your work elsewhere - that things can only get better with your presence. Sincerely, my best wishes to you. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. There are only 3 active editors there. No one else seems to be willing to touch the sight - oops- gotta go. The water for my coffee's boiling! But I'll be back. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What I want to tell you is that I find there's no correlation whatsoever between that first footnote and the (1st) paragraph to which it refers. I suggest you read carefully the text they quoting as their reference. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• But that's a minor point. You realize that mainstream scholarship holds "Historical Revisionism" to be so much hogwash. And that it's substantially known for its holocaust denial. But you wouldn't know that would you by reading this Wikipedia article? A word to the wise is sufficient. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article reasonable expectation of privacy, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford ^Pray 11:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Thingg^⊕⊗ 18:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Crazy Legs (album). Laudak (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Richard "Crazy Legs" Colón, since it is beyond personal chat. Laudak (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can you please explain this edit. It seems to that Shass Pollak does not directly relate to mishnah and should not be in the see also. Jon513 (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As laudable as a goal as having the article improved it is not a valid reason for it to be placed in the see also. Shas can refer to either mishnah or talmud depending on the usages. By linking to shass pollak in a article about the mishnah is misleading. Jon513 (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a valid reason as well. Also, Misleading in what way? Laudak (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your addition of the "citations missing" tag to several articles: The use of footnotes is not required by Wikipedia's citation policy. Technically, a list of sources at the bottom of an article is sufficient. It may not be the nicest way to do things, but that is what the community has upheld so far. If you want to use that template you should specify (on the article talk pages) which individual points you think should have footnotes. Otherwise, the template itself is of no use. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to disagree. Long articles actively edited by numerous anonymous editors without inline reference cause a natural suspicion in correctness. I don't think that peppering numerous statements with {{cn}} tags will look better. The articles in question are based mostly on opinions and conclusions of certain scholars on the subject, not just a description of, say, sun or copper which may be found in many places. These opinions/generalizations/conslusions must be properly attributed. YOu say "it is of no use". I beg to disagree: it brings attention to undercited article. As for the citation policy, I suggest you to see the guidelines for "good articles" and "featured articles". I don't think most of us be happy not having the articles in question not judged as "good" simply because our policies naturally very tolerant and favor content versus formality. But good articles must conform both content and formalism. Laudak (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of disagreement. Wikipedia policy does not require footnotes. Everything must be verifiable, but it is not required to be neatly attributed. Suspicion or not, that's just the way it is. Guidelines are guidelines, but can not be forced on every article. This has already been addressed on the template's talk page.

I'm certainly not saying you shouldn't use the tag, and I'm not saying you should use {{cite}} tags instead. I'm just saying you should make a note on each talk page to list which specific passages you'd like to see footnotes for. If you do it that way, the tag is just as useful as {{cite}} but (as you said) looks much nicer for the average reader. If you don't do that, how will anyone know when enough footnotes have been added to remove the tag? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position. Please look into my contributions, and you will notice that I am not a bot driver who accumulates his edit count by liberally tagging whatever can be tagged. I came to these articles via chain of wikilinks and this series struck me as severely undercited. As to "when enough footnotes", this issue, as numerous other ones are judged by wikipedians' common sense. You cannot write a policy for each and every keyboard click. Finally, please consider that for many readers the information who said something is just as important as what was said, and it is not simply the matter of scholar courtesy. Especially, like I said, in the areas such as politics, sociology, etc. I understand that big fat tag on top does not look pretty, but long articles without a single footnote look unporfessional. Laudak (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly didn't mean to give you the impression that I thought your edits were excessive; those articles' references could certainly use some improvement. The thing is, the only power that tag has is in its ugliness; since it isn't backed by policy, it doesn't have any clout unless specifics are mentioned. For example: Since we require citations to be provided on demand, and we also require (except for BLP) some notice before deleting large sections of articles, a {{cite}} tag that goes ignored for too long means the offending text can be deleted. But since there's no policy requiring footnotes, the {{citations missing}} tag can be ignored indefinitely and nothing can be done. Without a note of explanation on the talk page, it's just a tag for the sake of being a tag. Like {{cleanup}}, it doesn't say anything of value.

Obviously I can't make you do anything you don't want to do. But, considering how sparingly you've used it, it wouldn't be hard to specify a handful of passages in some talk page comments. Anyway, don't worry about it. I didn't mean to imply you were abusing the tags or anything like that. I'll try to take a look at the articles when I get the time. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added some references to Bandwidth.com. You may wish to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bandwidth.com. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard this numerous times from students that tested him. A student of his told me that he tested Rabbi Hirschsprung and he correctly said each word for 60 folios from the starting point and was so specific that he said "the daled of deileh, in Tosfos". However please give me some time to find it recorded somewhere citeable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavhathehunchback (talk • contribs) 20:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I reverted your edits to Clobber (disambiguation), according to MOS:DAB, specially the point "The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link", in MOS:DAB#Individual entries. --PeterCantropus (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreed. Laudak (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why? --PeterCantropus (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explained in edit summary. I respect your work to stick to the letter on the guideline, but description "computer term" is useless because it not a definition of the article subject. Laudak (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point: it doesn't have to be the definition, it just have to have the sufficient context to allow the reader to find the correct link. And it's NOT useless, because a computer term is clearly a different thing from an abstract strategy game, and from a trick card based game. --PeterCantropus (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say, but I find your version of context insufficient. Don't you find it ridiculous wrangling over 2 extra words? Laudak (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking an interest in the theory of humor section. I didn't understand you comment about not appreciating the difference between theory and research in humor. B. Mistler (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_9 has a proposal to delete Category:Non-fiction books noted for humor, which you created. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Brenda Biesterfeld, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenda Biesterfeld (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. TravellingCari 12:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC) TravellingCari 12:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of John Whiting (anthropologist), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/uvwxyz/whiting_john.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

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 (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ameliorate is an admin, so I would have doubts that they don't know about SYNTH. Just letting you know. — neuro^(talk) 19:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst that is true, it came across at a little bit demeaning to me. I don't know why, anyway, yeah, have a nice day. — neuro^(talk) 19:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably me just being the classic grumpy tired guy. :) — neuro^(talk) 19:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Proof that permanent is sharp-P-complete. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You and user NSK92 are both in clear violation of 3RR and both continuing the edit war. Time to stop. Paxse (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edits to the above whilst we gain some consensus at the BLP noticeboard discussion. Pedro :  Chat  22:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laudak,

Looks like we stepped into the same hornet's nest. I also nominated Deceased Wikipedians for deletion as well as JeffPW (Deceased wikipedian)';s for exactly the same reason. I agree that policy says Wikipedia is not a memorial. I've said so on the BLP page. Just a heads up ! — Kosh _{Naluboutes, Nalubotes} ^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 18:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously there are strong subcommunities which want to commemorate their members, and the rest of wikipedians just don't care. Wikipedia's non-article space is gray area for all kinds of activities not related to creation of encyclopedia: they have been playing chess, having wikipedia:wikifun, cracking jokes. I am wondering about wikiweddings now... Oh, and then how about in viko conception? Some people are really having a Second Life in wikipedia, no wonder. Laudak (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laudak,

Look like there's a proposal for how to handle deceased wikipedians right [|here:]. Check the section labeled "Memorials" for interesting reading.
— Kosh _{Naluboutes, Nalubotes} ^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 16:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:Humorous songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having a look on your contribs, I saw that your recent edit on Web Brigades followed your edit on Coprophilia. Upon a bit of thinking, it occurred to me that the article on Web Brigades is actually very much of coprophilia in essense. ellol (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what language (if any) is your userpage? Thank you. DS (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's your guess? Laudak (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note the "if any". There's suspicion that it's an idiolect or conlang. DS (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Laudak (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the re-organization of the Oath Keepers article. Varks Spira (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I can understand why you are making the edits on Ryan Higa and Sean Fujiyoshi that you are making, but you are doing so on an incorrect principle. Namely, you are mistaken in that primary sources are allowed. Youtube most certainly is a reliable source for stats about Youtube. It does not require any original research to conclude they are the most subscribed Youtube channel, as Youtube itself tells up as much. We can discuss this on the article's talk page further if you want, just let me know. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Laudak, I'm Airplaneman. I feel that I have to raise this issue once more. Blanking relevant content instead of finding sources for them is not helpful. The entire video section was sourced, yet you removed it. Please consider finding sources for content that helps illustrate the subject of an article instead of removing it entirely. Thank you, Airplaneman ^talk 05:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to wikipedia policies, unreferenced original research may be removed at any time. Videos themselves are not valid reference for encyclopedic content. Laudak (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is leaving it up against policy? I'm slowly working on getting refs. I was adding two more and got edit-conflicted, and decided not to save the edit and instead discuss it with you. I do not see why using videos for publication dates and overviews as well as information is against policy. See this explanation. I and others use the video sources with care and only when the info cited is contained within the source. I would like to restore the content and work with it further. Regards, Airplaneman ^talk 06:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using a primary source for non-controversial information is perfectly acceptable. A list of the videos they've made can legitimately be sourced to the videos themselves and is not original research. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the ppoblem, then? Please provide references and don't restore unreferenced information. Laudak (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The video section IS sourced (to the videos themselves). This is perfectly acceptable since it isn't controversial information. Feel free to start a discussion on about if you disagree, but please stop removing it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is controversial: there is not a single ref to videos and their descriptions. How do I know someone invented a dozen titles, just for lulz. Laudak (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smosh (4th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Cadet (genealogy), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Cadet. 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. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot 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 (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Humor websites, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Fixuture (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article IRD asset has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Dictionary definition unsourced since 2008, created by a sockpuppet account.

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. Mccapra (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article NSW Volunteer of the Year has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability whatsoever. Why would such an award be notable without secondary sourcing?

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. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Humor websites, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Micromania (video game retailer) 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 company, corporation or organization that does not credibly 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]