Bfinn

I removed the Wikilink to Bass clarinet because the Wikipedia article doesn't mention the organ stop. I thought of adding a reference, but couldn't immediately see where it should go. If the stop were to be mentioned, then the link could be returned, but otherwise I think that it's more misleading than helpful. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll just move the discussion on this over to the talk portion of the sequencers page and set myself to watch that since I think it'll be easier to track there.

Hi Ben. Don't worry about, I knew you had good intentions and you didn't mean any harm. Best thing is just to compare the two edits and copy in what you want in the new version. Happy editing! Thanks :-) Craigy   (talk) 21:49, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ben,

Please be careful with your additions. An encyclopædia has to use neutral sources and neutral language. Some of your edits weren't NPOV. And the article produced by the Socialist Worker is from a comment page. It is blatently POV and would never be used as a source for anything any more than an editorial on the Sun or The Telegraph would be suitable as a source. Commentaries, columns and editorials are by their nature POV. That is the whole point to them. All they can be used for is evidence of an opinion, not evidence of a fact, and as the article does not use editorials we can hardly use one from a minority publication with its own anti-royalist agenda.

NPOV can be tricky. Don't tell the reader what to think. Use neutral language that lets them reach their own conclusion. A lot of your language was more editorial and comment than NPOV and so is not encyclopædic.

FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 22:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

No problem, Ben. The problems with the Socialist Worker piece are threefold:

1. Publications such as it tend to be agenda-driven so are usually best avoided as sources. (The same is true of republican publications, monarchist publications, extreme left, extreme right, etc.) Basically they are propaganda publications aimed at their own members and rarely subscribe to any pretence at NPOV. In contrast even the most biased mainstream publication tends to have to temper its bias to get a general readership.
2. A comment column is invariably even more POV than the rest of the publication.
3. Comment columns rarely give any sources whatsoever and often just reflect the personal twist on events of the author. (I've written columns and you are expected to push an agenda, by painting the message as starkly, and indeed as unfairly against those you are criticising, as possible.) So unless there was a section on comments in columns, commentaries and editorials are usually best avoided.

FearÉIREANN \^(caint)

I've proposed a possible solution to end the style wars. you opinions are most welcome. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Style War proposed solution. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 03:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Linda Moulton Howe's website ishttp//:www.earthfiles.com[1]

Thought I might give you a buzz, and give you the above website. Seen the article.Martial Law 07:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC) :)Reply

Can you merge the Article:"Earthfiles" with your article:"Linda Moulton Howe" ? By the way, she is in Albuquerque,NM. Go to her Contact Info. area, click on that to see her "snail mail",Phone and FAX No.#s.Martial Law 08:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC) :)Reply

Her Contact info. is designated as "Contact Us"Martial Law 08:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC) :)Reply

Sorry about that one, didn't see that "interminable rumors" linked to Paul is Dead. Staxringold 14:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Ive added a response to one your comments. -Psyche|logy 23:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't know which media outlets, if any, mentioned it. I know that Biafra himself mentioned it, and made fun of it, on at least one of his spoken word albums over the past several years. --Cjmarsicano 16:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this [2]. Its nice to remember that Britain is part of Europe... William M. Connolley 11:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC).Reply

Although I agree with your reasoning in making changes to the criticism section, I don't think that your changes have improved the POV of the article- it now looks like one big attack on EBL. Instead I think the section should be rewritten to be more encyclopaedic, and rely less on claims in supposedly controversial books. Astrotrain 08:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I concur. The criticisms' sources do need qualification. It seems that their only source Kitty Kelley's The Royals. See "Kitty Kelley: Colonoscopist to the stars" (http://www.slate.com/id/2106746/).

Michael Crowley, the author, is a senior editor at the New Republic -- hardly a conservative organ -- and Slate, of course is no more so. Crowley says of Kelley, inter alia, that her biographies are "juicy, gossipy, salacious, titillating, delightful, and factually suspect"; "it's clear that Kelley is no meticulous historian who nails down her facts with airtight precision. To the contrary, she is the consummate gossip monger, a vehicle for all the rumor and innuendo surrounding her illustrious subjects"; "an individual Kelley story, divorced from a larger narrative about a subject, will easily fall apart." If the article is to have any credibility it should not rely on such a source for bare assertions of fact; if it mentions allegations in such a source it must also mention that the source is suspect. It is noteworthy that Kelley's book has not been published in the UK; if she were confident of being immune to liability in a libel suit surely there would be no hesitation.

Please note that I am not suggesting that the article should not report criticism. I am saying that the reportage of such criticism should be credible. Kelley is marginally so and if she is to be quoted, an honest caveat as to her integrity needs to be entered. Otherwise the article lacks integrity. Masalai 08:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello,
Can you provide a source for the following paragraph in Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians: The second edition has been the subject of some academic and press criticism due to various errors it contains, reportedly due in part to students having been used to check it. One volume had to be re-issued in a corrected version after publication. ? I have heard that there are some errors, but I'm not sure what sort of publication might review the New Grove, and it would be good to have a source for that, if possible. Thanks! --Sesquialtera II 18:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

excellent, thanks! --Sesquialtera II 22:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I have a question for you at Talk:Tommy Atkins - take a look? Cheers, JackyR 17:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Bfinn. Do you have a source for the claim that a real bullet was used in filming Edge of Darkness? It's typical hoax material, so I don't think it should stay on Wikipedia unless you can come up with a citation. Slowmover 20:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reply. It's just so hard to believe they would actually do that. Strangely, I always thought the scene looked fake, but maybe that's because I've seen too many Hollywood style shootings. Anyway, I'll keep my eyes peeled for a source too. Slowmover 14:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 23:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Greetings Bfinn. Could you please specify what you mean about 1 December, 1981 being when "AIDS was first identified"? It is usually stated that the CDC report of 5 June is was the first time the phenomenon was identified. The only references to 1 December I can find are on (or copied from) Wikipedia. I suspect there has been confusion with World AIDS Day somewhere. Thanks.

LachlanA 05:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Good edits; I have responded.--Runcorn 06:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I remember reading the premature death report while flipping through a reference book for doll collectors back in the late 1980s. I can't remember the name of the book to save my life. Because there were several Dr. Who action figures made in Baker's image, this book listed him in a who's who section and all I remember is it said he died in 1982 of a drug overdose in a Los Angeles hotel. I was rather saddened by that and it wasn't until about 1990 when I saw an interview with Baker that I learned he was still alive. I've been trying to find that book for years, but I've never seen it again. So I wouldn't be able to add it to your list unless I could find or remember the source. Cheers! 23skidoo 16:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I accidentally used the rollback function on your edits to the list of premature obituaries. I meant to hit "show details" but accidentally clicked rollback. I reverted myself. No response needed, just a notice of the accident :) Teke ^(talk) 02:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I failed the article as a GA, according to the GA criteria. See the talk page for further details. Let me know if you have any questions. --Nehrams2020 19:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

No problem. When I first read the title, I thought it was about premature babies' obituaries, and I thought that the list was really cruel with hundreds of entries. It was a good thing I looked the article over and was proven wrong. Keep up the good work on it, and look into seeing if you can get it a FA. --Nehrams2020 23:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Although I'm no expert on WP:FLC I would have thought people will ask for references for each person. Not sure what is the best thing to do - you may have to wait until you or other people find suitable references before nominating for WP:FLC. Then again you could move unsourced to the talk page as you suggested and hope references are found for them in the future. Sorry I can't really be of any help! - Suicidalhamster 23:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think you contacted me in error: I believe you are looking at this edit, and your question is for Fallout boy (talk · contribs). Best regards, --RobertG ♬ talk 09:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ben,

I was involved with the internet wrestling media between 1997 and 2001, and sometime around 1998 the e-mail sheet I was an editor of had gotten a tip about a man named Harley Race in Missouri committing suicide by handgun. As it would turn out later in the day, it wasn't THE Harley Race, but every popular website devoted to wrestling at the time covered the story. Unfortunately, most of these sites didn't keep very good archives so in this case we will have to rely on accounts from those like myself who originally covered the story. --CJ Marsicano 02:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ben, please see this link from the imdb discussion board from October, 2006. She was listed as being dead at that time.

[3]

Mikemoto 13:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I actually remember seeing it on WWOR TV (Ch.9) in Secaucus, New Jersey back in 1987. She briefly referred to him as "the late Abe Vigoda" in some other news story, and there was a rash of phone calls and telegrams to their news desk about it. The anchorwoman(Jennifer Valoppi) corrected herself the next day. The only thing I could possibly suggest is that you e-mail the station and ask to look through the archives. If not, try the the Museum of Television and Radio in New York City. Other than that, I really don't know what to tell you. ---- DanTD 17:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The only reference I have to Fane's father having a similar experience is the one I quoted from the Wisden obit in 1961. Fane's father was Frederick John Fane, and though he played in one "important" cricket match (a XXII of Ireland vs an XI from the United South of England in 1865 – such mismatches were commonplace in those days) he didn't rate a Wisden obituary for himself (I've checked my copies through the 1920s). Such details as I have of him come from here. If I find more, I'll let you know. Johnlp 16:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I added Rex Alston too. Johnlp 18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I added this to the exalted one's page

"A 1947 letter she wrote described "her decided lack of enthusiasm for the socialist government" and describes the British electorate as "poor people, so many half-educated and bemused" for electing Clement Attlee over war hero Winston Churchill. That said, this was to be expected since, as Lord Wyatt argues, the Queen Mother was "the most right-wing member of the Royal Family." ^[1]"

I expect it to be taken down soon. Gareth E Kegg 23:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I remember hearing about his "death" in 1986 or thereabouts. I am trying to find a reference for you (see Dreamwatch) Kransky 13:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I found a source for Duns Scotus buried away at safety coffin, but the net draws dry for Wolff. There was also a cite requested in the Nobel entry for a statement sourced in the lead, which I fixed. suspect that nothing can be done without at least a year. I recommend commenting out in the list and his article for the time being. Circeus 17:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

You either nominated a WP:FLC or closed such a nomination recently. As such, you are the type of editor whose opinion I am soliciting. We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September). When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month. I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page. Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 1 2007, voting starting December 1 2007 and main page appearances starting January 1 2008. For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual content will resemble the current content at the featured content page. Such output would probably start at the bottom of the main page. The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries. However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge. Right now debate seems to be among support for the current selective democratic/consensus based proposal, a selective dictatorial approach like that used at WP:TFA or a non-selective first in line/calendar approach like that used at WP:POTD. See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

You either voted on the original list of the day proposal or the revised version. A more modest experimental proposal is now at issue at WP:LOTDP. Feel free to voice your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you voted on the List of the Day proposal. A new one has been made and your comments are welcome. The Placebo Effect 01:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 19:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for submitting a list to WP:LOTD. January nominations are closed and February nominations are open. The January nominee commenting has begun. Feel free to participate in the commentary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for nominating a candidate at WP:LOTD. You may want to come by and address some of the feedback you have received before voting begins, which it will in less than 24 hours.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am surprised at the number of people who have nominated candidates and participated in feedback, but have not voted. If I had made voting mandatory, would it have kept you from nominating an article?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I donno, I'd hesitate to take it literally, it really seemed like self-deprecating humor to me. I find it hard to believe an obit would have been written in such a malicious way. Gigs 00:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations!!! List of premature obituaries has been chosen in the inaugural class of January 2008 LOTDs. I hope you will continue to participate in the WP:LOTD process. If you have a date preference get back to me by the end of 2007-12-23 UTC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on John Parkin (infomercial presenter) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ukexpat (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Black's 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 notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance 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 (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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ukexpat (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Paul Drayton (composer), 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. Magioladitis (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

You've made some changes that violated NPOV so I've fixed them. In the future, please be more careful to maintain the neutrality of articles, even when you disagree with what they say. Spotfixer (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you are doing great work on the Rand article. However, the introduction has been damaged a lot, mainly because the continuous reversions since my rewrite yesterday have left footnotes in the wrong place, sentences removed because apparently out of context after poor edits and so on. I have not attempted a reconstruction, but I have left some notes on the talk page. There is one person there (I am sure you know who I mean) who tends to insert poorly-thought and poorly-worded edits without regard for overall meaning or flow. Best Peter Damian (talk) 12:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to comment that I enjoyed your anecdote of one, on your never having heard of Rand. Yet I wonder why no one is fighting to get their edits in on the Quinton article? On the one hand Rand is said to not qualify as a philosopher and on the other hand we have more than a dozen editors fighting over edits to her article. What kind of anecdotal evidence is that? ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think the main tripping point in the "philosopher" discussion and in the fight over the article more generally is the academic philosopher model vs. the anti-academic model of practical, political, and mass appeal philosophy pursued by Ayn Rand. Her work is certainly outside the confines of academia, but being popular or choosing to deal with political philosophy as opposed to more existential questions of being doesn't seem to me to disqualify her as a philosopher. I suppose there's some political science mixed in, but developing a philosophical system seems ample qualification to be considered a philosopher, and is supported by a large number of very reliable sources (NYT Obit is in and of itself hard to refute). The argument against her being included is that she hasn't been respected and studied more by academic philosophers. In addition to the politics involved, their opinion of her as a bad philosopher or a philosopher worth neglecting, doesn't disqualify her as a philosopher. I would compare her to Robert Pirsig as far as the audience for her philosophical works. Anyway, I appreciate the civil discussion. For what it's worth, she's not a very good philosopher. :) Her work is significant for its broader significance and arguments about society, economics, and values; and for the dogmas and assumptions it challenges. The anecdotal evidence of her influence on Jimbo Wales is more evidence of her broad and substantial influence. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Comparing philosophers to structural engineers is a bit of a stretch I think, is a field with provable and demonstrable results that can be quantified while the other is an intellectual field of study. But given the real world impacts of Marx and Rand, to give two examples, perhaps it's not so much of a stretch. To follow your example then, I wonder what we would call a student of engineering who wrote about it and then engineered a series of built structures. The buildings were controversial and didn't follow many of the normal protocols, but were based on a new standard of analysis for ensuring safety and design. And before you jump on me and say there is only one standard, even if that were true in building which I don't think it is, I don't think it is true in philosophy. But I guess that's where we differ. Academic philosophers may control what is taught at Universities and who is included in textbooks, but I don't think they can define how the rest of society assesses who is and isn't a philosopher. Even those who aren't part their professional circle can practice the craft. In all professions there are those who receive the academic qualifications and others who practice outside of those academic confines. When there is no clear definition, test, or procedure to determine official inclusion (as with Dr. or PhD, although even there the signifance on the degree varies) I think the proof is in the pudding so to speak. If someone creates a philosophic system, then I think that is ipso facto (which I'm probably using wrong but seems amusing) evidence that they are a philosopher. Sorry about the verbosse response. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your statement contains a number of interesting caveats, such as the fact that the Greek philosophers wouldn't meet your definition of philosopher these days. This is troubling. But the fact that you want to compare philosophers to economists is also telling to me. Talk about a pseudo science ;) In regard to your discussion of the importance of being a student, you should know that Rand graduated University in related fields and let's not pretend that life's lessons don't provide ample schooling for those who puruse exceptional endeavors. Indeed the painter analogy is fitting, neither philosophy nor the arts can be quantified or measured in any objective sense. Is Jackson Pollack a good painter? Not only can anyone call themselves a painter, but the successful and notable ones are recognized as such. What are the professional qualifications for philosophers? I think this argument is difficult or impossible to support. Academic training and qualifications do not define a person. A landscape architect who is successful and practices a lifetime of notable works is a landscape architect whether or not they trained at the Sorbonne. It isn't enough to have a financial position to qualify as an economist, but someone who studies and writes in the field and develops an economic system is certainly an economist whether or not they graduated Harvard Business School or LSE. At the New York Times the former theater critic now writes (badly) on politics. Is he still just a theater critic? Rand didn't just write about philosophy, she developed one. That, it seems to me, is the existential proof that she was in fact a philosopher. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've filed an RfM on Ayn Rand, including as parties only those who've recently edited the article. However, as you've commented on talk, you might want to be involved too. If so, please add your name to the list of parties at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I haven't removed the material you added under the subject "Moral", as I think I have nothing more to say that would help with that article until some hard critical evaluation of all the material is done in a climate which does not include appalling levels of attribution of motives and other undesirable types of discourse. However, I just wanted to say I was pleased to see there was at least one other person who shares the same kind of thoughts about the article and wikipedia in general (even if I am an administrator, that is), and, without committing myself to say either way whether your post was acceptable according to WP:TALK or not, it was good to read. (I agree with your position about what constitutes a philosopher as well!)  DDStretch  (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

User:Scorpion0422 has nominated List of premature obituaries for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading File:CheneyCNNobit.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Liquid Audio 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 or corporation, 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 companies and corporations.

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. noq (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering if you might have a look at the ongoing heated discussion on the Sheldrake page. In particular I hope you'll have a look at the section called Maddox, etc (though for background, you might want to look at Deleted corrections as well). I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Alfonzo Green (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Hello Bfinn! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 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 4 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Rawle Allicock - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Paul Drayton (composer) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. James Clapperton - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
4. Richard Emsley - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

The article Paul Drayton (composer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Long term unreferenced BLP.

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. TexasAndroid (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Where did you get the information that Marvin Chomsky was related to Noam Chomsky? (I think this was your contribution?). I'd like to see the citation. Thanks, TheFireTones 20:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Stainer & Bell 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 an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Sippe.JPG. However, it needs some more work before it is okay to use on Wikipedia.

Please click here and do the following:

1. Add a description of where the image comes from (not what it is) and who the creator is. Please be specific, and include a link if you can.
2. Find the appropriate license from the list of free, non-free media, or public domain options. Copy the license template and paste it in the file's page, and save.

If you follow these steps, your image can help enhance Wikipedia. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the media copyright questions page.

Thank you for your contribution! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you recently edited Cross and Cockade, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bullseye (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you recently edited Sydney Vincent Sippe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Museum of Science and Industry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

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

Trivial pejorative

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

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

1970s (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Till Death Do Us Part

English coffeehouses in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Royal Exchange

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

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

I can't find a reliable source anywhere that uses the term, and it appears to be a relatively obscure slang term.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

You misread the article title. I hope you'd consider replacing the PROD tag, as I really don't want to have to take this through AFD. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

We at WP:MED typically state the conclusions rather than prefacing stuff with "research shows" Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

88.90.229.203 (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC) All right, four tildes. All I wanted to say was Bless your fantasy. Read about your schwa comment on the Claudian letters page. Thanks for saving me the time. -NihilistSupraOrdinaireReply

Hi Bfinn, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm writing to follow up on a post you made back in August of 2012 on the Talk page for Fox suggesting that the article include a section on urban foxes. I'm part of a group of college students working on improving the Fox article as part of an assignment (we've posted the relevant info on the Fox talk page). I've recently come across a book "Urban Foxes" by Stephen Harris which looks promising. I was curious as to why you made that specific suggestion; do you know much about the phenomenon or know of any other good sources of info? Thank you for your time. Narange1 (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Remember that when adding medical content please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Sibelius (software) page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• /> or '''oatmeal''' is a dish made by boiling ground, crushed, or chopped [[cereal]] or [legumes]] in [[water]], [[milk]], or both, with optional flavourings, usually served hot in a bowl or dish.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello. On March 10 2016, you moved this article to the title Edward Rushton (writer), on the grounds that there is also a musician called Edward Rushton. That might be so, but Wikipedia doesn't have an article on Edward Rushton (musician) yet. Until we do, there's no need for the disambiguation brackets, and the article should remain as simply 'Edward Rushton'. I've moved it back. (Even if the musician's article is created, this article could still remain under its current title if the poet and abolitionist is much more well-known; see the WP:Primary topic guideline.) Thanks for reading, and happy editing. Robofish (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

European Union, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

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

A reuzenbol can mean any large and ball-shaped object. As a dish, I and several others on the talk page have never heard of this. I am also unable to google any WP:GNG-compliant sourcing.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Does this person have any claim to fame? See Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_composers_and_lyricists and Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Is there anything about this person that exceeds those requirements? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for the message. While I doubt he is notable as a composer under the given criteria, he is notable as a musicologist in that he made contributions to several standard works including Grove's Dictionary - I've added details of this. Also his obituary was published in The Times which I expect is sufficient to confirm notability in itself. Ben Finn (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • (We can keep the conversation here) Getting your obituary published in a major newspaper isn't sufficient for notability purposes. With respect, I'm still not seeing anything that supports notability. Wrote some books? Sure. Being an author doesn't make one notable for our purposes. If he's notable as a musicolgist, please find secondary sources that support such notability. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
    • I assume an obituary is a legitimate secondary source? I think it's likely there is also an entry about him in New Grove but I don't have a copy to check. Ben Finn (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
      • Most people in western society have obituaries printed about them. An obituary isn't evidence of notability. Searching Grove Music Online, I found an entry for him, but again this doesn't provide much in the way of evidence of notability. Please review WP:NACADEMIC and see if you can find anything that supports inclusion based on those criteria. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
        • Almost no-one has an obituary (as opposed to a death notice) published in a major national newspaper - only something like three a day in The Times. I can't access Grove online as I'm not a subscriber, but IMHO the Times plus Grove is sufficient to establish notability under WP:GNG (and in any case the Grove entry may well suffice for criterion 1 of WP:NACADEMIC). Ben Finn (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
          • I don't think so. I really need you to find other sources to support notability. As is, this is a near candidate for speedy deletion. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
            • Well I think so. Are The Times and Grove not significant secondary sources? An obit in The Times is certainly significant coverage (not a trivial/passing mention of him); such obits are published precisely because their subjects are notable. And a Grove entry surely is significant coverage too, being the music encyclopedia of record. Ben Finn (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
              • I'm not trying to convince you of anything other than a whole heck of a lot of work needs to be done here. PLEASE, I beg of you, if you think this person is notable enough for inclusion then please please please please please please find other sources that support notability. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
                • I'll certainly keep an eye out for some. Next time I'm in the British Library I'll see what I can find. Trouble is, not being in the musicology world myself, I don't have ready access to resources similar to Grove that would include such information. Ben Finn (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Internet is an amazing thing. Perhaps you've heard of it? :) All joking aside, seriously...scan the Internet. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm Teblick. Bfinn, thanks for creating Philip Radcliffe!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. You need to cite sources of your information. More information would be good, too. Establishing notability is difficult with the limited amount of information in this article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Eddie Blick (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

The article Symington's has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

The article David Robert Coleman has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. The garmine ^(talk) 14:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Symington's is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symington's until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Robert Coleman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Robert Coleman until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Bfinn,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged OFEX for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

 Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Starlite is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starlite until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Zubin12 (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

The article Cross and Cockade has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced, and a search shows that no independent reliable sources exist.

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. Theredproject (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Bfinn

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Bensci54, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, WALY (unit), for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Bensci54}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bensci54 (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Bfinn

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Bensci54, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, WELLBY, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Bensci54}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bensci54 (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

An article you recently created, WELLBY, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

An article you recently created, WALY (unit), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm not an IPA expert, but are you sure you've got it right? Locally it's it's more like "Ro-CHES-ter". Does the inverted "e" carry an implied "r" sound? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

The inverted e doesn’t carry an implied r sound. Though in most UK dialects the final r is silent (not sure about in Rochester itself). Ben Finn (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

True places like Man-CHES-ta drop the "r" but I haven't noticed it locally. As an incomer from the cold north of 20 years standing I'm probably not the best exemplar but I'll have a more detailed listen to over the next few days to see it I cam differentiate between "-ta" and -"ter". Of course if you've got a reliable source then I won't bother! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, Bfinn. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:WELLBY, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, Bfinn. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:WALY (unit), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Bfinn. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "WELLBY".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Bfinn. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "WALY".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply