User talk:Ihcoyc/archive 9

Nuff said.83.208.165.249 (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

dear Ihcoyc. thanks for speedily deleting one of the articles i was editing. would you mind please re-instating it as none of the claims are correct. subject is well noted in other articles on google and yahoo, bing, baidu etc (over 2000 of them) and I am merely piecing relevant material encyclopaedically (being a reference of references). As well, subjects earlier notability occurred when internet was in its infancy, and I dont have the means or ability to post print news articles and print reference texts, let alone pictures. I have no direct connection to subject. This really irks me.... Seen him at a gig in china. Havent even met the guy. It has support, with other editors (as you see in its history) participating in editing. Thankyou in advance in your support of having wikipedia be the "reference of references" that it is. Avatera (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

thankyou for the response. I dont have any knowledge of previous attempts and I really cant compare something that I dont know about with something of today that complies with all things wiki, has several sources of information to, and that I and others spent a lot of time in containing inline citations to and linking well researched references on. If you also noticed in the talk page there was a lot of stuff cut out of the previous article under "DJ 2greendollars" which wasnt put into the "2greendollars" article as it needed more community consultation and inline citations. Wouldnt it be more mindful of you to delete the material associated with any previous article written under the name of a supposed article under "anthony chidiac" - not simply blow away the time and effort of a group of people associated with putting together an article? it has been up for some time now, I think nearly a year...so I'm at a loss as to why you can not only nominate for speedy deletion but do it without consultation with any of the editors listed in the history. To me this sounds like you are interpreting the wikipedia rules for your own purpose and not that of a community at large. Please dont take my comments negatively but I think whats best is a win-win situation and a forum for discussion, a deletion of material not referenced or researched as per WP:BIO - not a razor to editors throats and canning an ENTIRE ARTICLE for compiling information as a reference of references on the internet. I have no information on any previous article than that of "DJ 2greendollars" and "2greendollars" - is there any copy of this somewhere that I can compare? if you have copy then surely I can view the same yes? thanks. ava. Avatera (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I nominated that article for speedy deletion because it had already been deleted three times before for lack of notability, and the re-submission of material that's already been deleted after full discussion is indeed grounds for speedy deletion. Since this has happened three times before, it's pretty much established that this entertainer is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and will not have one. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

The page was deleted and cannot be restored with the same name. The deleted page was speaking about a noticeable software that recently won an awoards and it is referenced in this Wikipedia Article Infoworld_Bossie_Awards and here Commercial_open_source_applications. I ask you to remove the lock, in order to allow me or other wikipedian users to write an article on this topic. I don't ask you to restore the page, i just ask you to remove the lock, than someone can write the article and subit it to you or other administrators.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprmw7 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dear lhcoyc! i had this talk with another administrator: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Boing!_said_Zebedee#LogicalDOC_content_replacement Boing! suggested me to speak with you in order to unprotect the article.

Please, give me some kind of feedback, try to inspect the article to see if(as i think) it follows the Wikipedia guide lines. Best Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprmw7 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks, i have applied various modifications you suggested. But i need some help, please look at the talk page: User_talk:Sprmw7/LogicalDOC —Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC).

Dear Ihcoyc, i put an additional reference to the page. I found a web page of the old project Contineo that is online since many years, and this page confirms some dates and informations i wrote in my article about LogicalDOC. What do you think about this? Are now enough the references in order to publish the article? Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprmw7 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ihcoyc, can you remove the lock on the LogicalDOC page? I wish to publish the article since i think it would be apreciated by Wikipedia users and administrators, since all informations collected here are true and verifiable. Thanks in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprmw7 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks Ihcoyc for your revision, your edits to the page were correct and i agree that the article looks better now. I just corrected a syntax error in the 'Cloud/SaaS' string. If you could unlock the page LogicalDOC page it would be very good, so i will publish it. Please let me know if and when i can proceed. Best Regards

Perfect Ihcoyc, the page seems to be published, i also fixed the broken links. Many thanks for your work, many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprmw7 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

The page was deleted and now can no longer be created under that name. Try creating the page and you get a page protect error, even though the page doesn't exist right now. So indeed, the page got "salted". –BuickCenturyDriver 10:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

In case it might amuse you: http://writing-program.uchicago.edu/toys/randomsentence/index.htm -- Rrburke (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Hello! Your submission of Article at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! res Laozi speak 20:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for uploading File:He-man.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

User:Wuhwuzdat has made a very WP:Pointy deletion nomination of List of management consulting firms after two of his wholesale deletions of article content were reverted and explained here. Since you participated in the 1st AfD, I am notifying you of the 2nd AfD in the event you wish to participate. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Bravo. — Timneu22 · talk 15:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Based on your comments made to the Apriva page, I made several edits to try and help the article survival. Several more relevant citations were added into the article, and more information was written to help explain why the company is significant. Let me know what more I can do to ensure it's survival. Thanks. Bfeddern (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me, I believe you have my stapler. Invitrovanitas (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

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

Adequately covered in Apatheism, term defined differently by just about every source that uses it.

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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Eldamorie (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Archbishop of Rome (RFD discussion)

You might be interested in this. Uncle G (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Phialo (AfD discussion)

How are you on the classics? Uncle G (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

If I am understanding the process correctly, you appear to be the person responsible for the unilateral deletion of my carefully prepared Mengyuan information. Would you please reinstate the deleted page while we go through the initial process of modifying the page so we can both agree that the content is appropriate. From what I have read so far, this is a preferable process to going straight to a deletion review. Thanks. Mengyuan2011 (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you sir for restoring the page. I have re-read the page carefully, and although I understand how you might conclude it is just an advertisment, I hope you can appreciate that it is also a statement of fact that I would like recorded for posterity. I would appreciate it if you would be so kind as to advise me on how we proceed. Thanks. Regards, Kim. Mengyuan (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• List of people who have claimed to be Jesus (AfD discussion)

You actually opined on this the first time around. It's now the third and the merger has long since happened. Uncle G (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I enjoyed reading User:Ihcoyc/The presumption of non-notability for Internet related, computing, and services businesses, it's an interesting essay. You may also enjoy and might want to contribute to an essay along similar lines: Wikipedia:Avoid mission statements. I created that after seeing one to many meaningless mission statements paraded out as actual content in articles a while ago.--RadioFan (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why should the reputation or actions of an article's editor(s) have any bearing on whether the article should be PRODed or not? I certainly don't see that listed as a common reasons for deletion. Do you think that falls under the "not limited to" clause? Should it be added to the list? --Hamitr (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I notice that the AFD on Cherokee Web Server is incomplete. You might want to go back and fix that. Apologies if you are in the middle of it.--RadioFan (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Bugapi (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bugapi. -- RadioFan (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Okay, you've got my curiosity piqued. What's about the string "saas" that could be suspect? (I believe in this case "Resaas" stands for something like "Real Estate Sales Associate Assistance Scheme".) BTW, I chose not to CSD it because the assertion that the company is publicly traded on a national exchange (and it is) is to my mind an assertion of significance that rules out A7. Let me know if consensus is against this interpretation. Thanks. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello. You participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RouterTech where you expressed the opinion that the article should be deleted. It was, but the article's creator had an administrator undelete the article and renominate it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RouterTech (2nd nomination). I figured that since you have participated in many AfDs, especially those pertaining to non-notable software and other products, your experience and opinion will be valuable in this case. I hope to see you at the AfD. Regards, Rilak (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Sorry to bother you again, but the AfD is not progressing well. The creator of the article is dismissing my arguments and ignoring various policies and guidelines (such as WP:N and WP:RS). Since I get the impression that the creator of the article views me as an evil editor who is out to get his articles deleted, I would appreciate it if you could review the arguments made by all participants and comment on them.

PS: If you know of a deletionist cabal that takes joy in getting artcles about non-notable topics deleted, I could use their help right now... :)

Thanks, Rilak (talk) 07:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yep, it's me again. Just want to let you know that an editor is now defending RouterTech by insinuating that you and I are colluding in having RouterTech deleted. Regards, Rilak (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Display examples 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/Display examples (2nd nomination) 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand how you reach the conclusion that the deletion had to be done... Just because Smerdis of Tlön asked a caustic question? Of course not it isn't possible that you get a loan just on your emotional balance... But certainly a depressed person has less chance than a charismatic one... Anyway. The point is not about is Triple Accounting relevant but if Triple Accounting is notable... And from my small perspective of Belgian living in Brussels and working with social entreprenors... This concept is being noted more and more. Olivier C (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I asked how to support the article... You main respond was just to shoot it down... How constructive is it?

Might be that I don't understand the process but you were the only one suggesting deletion where, Bruno was asking how to improve and I was suggesting that the article was worth... So I do not understand... Should we have a kind of "Keep it" sign?

I guess like suggest here... I will bring the article back when I will have found more references and proofs that in Belgium that do make sens. Thank you for your explanations Olivier C (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I am going to appeal the speedy deletion of The Global Townhall page based on an incorrect search term used as justification to delete it, and provide additional information. Out of courtesy, I wanted to give you an opportunity to review the new information before I officially appeal the deletion to see if you would like to reverse it given the new information. Please see following information:

Appealing Deletion of The Global Townhall page

The search term used to justify speedy deletion of this page was inaccurate and invalid. Said company is three words, search used to justify deletion was only two words.

“fails WP:CORP. potential hoax or at the very least blatant self promotion. nothing in gnews [1], despite the grand claims of being involved with notable people. lacks reliable sources. also note the excessive and unnecessary use of categories. LibStar (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)”Reply

Proof of involvement with notable people can be ascertained with a correct and relevant search term that shows acknowledgment of The Global Townhall interview on notable person's official site Google. To cross check notable people who were claimed to be interviewed; here are three examples of notable people at a glance who reposted the interview on their Official Site as an external reference:

2010 No.1 Women’s World Tennis Champion, Caroline Wozniaki’s Official Site:

Bestselling author David Baldacci's Official Site

Caddy Shack actress Cindy Morgan’s Official Site:

If they did not interview with said company they would not post it on their official site.

Evidence that the CEO and Founder of The Global Townhall is actively involved with notable people is evident here as a Board Member of The International Relations Council which can be found on this IRC Board of Directors list. The IRC hosts global dignitaries from around the world including Prime Ministers and Secretary of States at events in Kansas City, of which the Founder would be obliged to attend as a Board Member. The exceptional speaker list can be found here.

The CEO and Founder of the company is also listed as a Coalition Member alongside Senators, Congressmen and other notable people at a DC energy policy organization Set America Free.

Here are pictures Hall of Fame Astronaut, Story Musgrave visiting with the CEO of The Global Townhall and being introduced to influential people in Kansas City:

It is a valid point that the categories was wrong and do need to be changed. That was my error in changing them as I did not think "Urban Planning" which someone had added was accurate.

I will attempt to answer this question posted from Perdon:

"Puzzled What does "The Global Townhall (TGT) is a Kansas City based company dedicated to collecting ideas from successful people around the world to help main street excel." mean? Anyone know? Peridon (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)"Reply

"Main street" is a term made popular again through the recent Wall Street crash, referring to everyday people trying to make an honest living to provide for their family.

As examples of what the above statement means in real terms, I will cite an interview conducted with Australian billionaire Ken Talbot. The interview provides tips from the billionaire on how to become financially successful, to help people on "main street" prosper. The interview also focuses on how billionaires and policy makers can help poverty stricken Africans (main street there) while conducting their mining business in Africa

The interview with Pakistani celebrity Veena Malik helps women in Pakistan from being killed by their fathers in honor killings by bringing cultural awareness through her following as a celebrity.

The interview with Australia’s Biggest Loser Fitness Trainer, Michelle Bridges is intended to help keep people at a healthy weight therefore having a better quality life.

So the notable people are obviously associated with the company and if you review the content of the interviews they are all intended to help people, so the page was not a “blatant advert” as claimed, but a review of what it does and who is featured on the site. The site is a treasure trove of encyclopedic information from one of Leslie Nielsen’s last interviews (listen to the audio clip on the page as proof,) to comments from a Commanding 3 Star General on US involvement in the Egyptian Revolution, to whether a Senior Senator plans to run for President.

At the very least, the word “hoax” should be removed as it is slanderous (and may make you vulnerable for a legal action) and was based on an incorrect and irrelevant search term. If The Global Townhall does what it does as I have established, this is all very unfair and a poor reflection on Wikipedia.

Thanks for your consideration in reversing the deletion and removing the "hoax" given this new information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lassiew (talk • contribs) 11:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mickey mouse acid warning.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 15:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rabbit foot blues.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 15:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Someone objected me doing something like this, but I still think you should check my recent edit history for more digital signage articles written by PR companies. It looks like they have a lobby group or something like that here. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for finding the misdirected links at Barclay Harding Warburton II. You left a comment but did not vote, did you have an opinion? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just to let you know, I enjoyed parts of your recent rant so much that I have included two attributed excerpts of it in my Nuggets of Wiki Wisdom . If you object let me know. Thanks, and nice to meet you.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm usually on the opposite side when it comes to Redthoreau, but on this we agree. Your comments are a welcome breath of fresh air amidst a stuffy room of fetid farts. Thank you for sharing the penetrating gaze of your dharma eye. Viriditas (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Stop your insults [3]. Remove this, now. Final warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

No. (And if you think I am insulting any specific editor, you apparently aren't reading what I actually wrote there.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I restored Jeff Hilimire due to a request on WP:REFUND--almost all proposed deletions are restored on request. However I agree with your reasons for prodding the article and I wanted to leave this note in case you want to send it to AfD. Thanks, Protonk (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I saw you were in the deletion discussion about some Mage things (including the Technocracy), so I thought you might want to contribute in a merge discussion about the Technocracy. Or you might not. Either way's fine. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for uploading File:Mickey mouse acid warning.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. damiens.rf 17:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ihoyc, regarding the comment you made here, I just wanted to talk to you about a few issues. Firstly, and most seriously, you say "you're telling me is that it's the Foundation that's being the dicks here". Now I don't think anybody else said that, so it's a straw man argument for starters (if they did, please point me towards who said it, and I'll have a word with them). Secondly, that implies that you are calling the foundation dicks, this is an attack against them, and is disruptive, continuing along these lines will lead to a civility or NPAs block. The rest of your comment is drama-mongering, regardless of the context, and is not adding anything to the discussion. Phrases like "civil war" are not helping the editors there to properly discuss in the spirit of collaboration, please remember Wikipedia is not your battleground. Thanks, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the explanation. I've used redirect before but didn't even think of it in this instance. Your comments were appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I didn't mean to stalk your contributions (I was confused at the difference between your sig and your username and trying to figure out what was going on) but I did notice that you incorrectly tagged File:Mickey_mouse_acid_warning.png as public domain due to its method of distribution. Thats not quite right. If you were to argue that distribution by photocopier constituted publication, which I would (if for no other reason then unpublished works are under copyright in the US for 120 years from creation) then the correct reason would be that it was a work first published in the US between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice attached. Cornell as a super-handy list for what works fall into the public domain when, you can see it at http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm. -- ۩ Mask 11:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

The intent of the author doesn't matter so much without an explicit license, Copyright Law errs on the restrictive rather then the permissive. Snopes traces examples to portugal and brazil as far back as the late 70's, with an American origin. I think you can safely say first publication was prior to 1978. -- ۩ Mask 11:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have recently been indefinitely blocked for responding to the debate we are having concerning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ipatiev2.jpg

I posted an extremely lengthy rejoinder, which SarekofVulcan construed as a polemic, and thus deleted. When I posted it again, stating that it was relevant to the case (because, in my opinion, it is), it was reverted again as soapboxing. The rejoinder can be viewed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_May_31&diff=432469717&oldid=432469381

SarekfVulcan subsequently blocked me indefinitely. He did not give me a warning. There was no indication from the debate that I would be blocked for posting my rejoinder.

I then appealed the case 3 times, and in each case was met with hostility. The third administrator removed my ability to appeal the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blastikus#Admission_of_error_-_request_for_unblock

Is there any condition I could meet so that I am able to resume editing wikipedia? This case seems to have been an ideological/content dispute that was overblown. Regardless of my disagreement, I do promise to maintain respect of administrators and editors, focus on the content at hand, and keep my counter-points short and concise, but I do believe this action was unwarranted.

If you wish to reply, please respond to my talk page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blastikus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.114.106.65 (talk) 03:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much! —Chowbok ☠ 20:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for uploading File:Lake Nemi 1831.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ihcoyc,

Could you restore [[Weaksauce]] temporarily, so I can transwiki it properly? The previous "transwiki" simply took the content with an edit-summary acknowledgement. (Which would be fine if the article here were being kept, since then anyone could come here for the complete edit history; but since it's not, that transwiki method amounted to copyright violation.)

Thanks in advance!
—Ruakh_TALK
13:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and now I realize that you're the one who transwiki'd it wrong. For future reference: please don't do it that way. If you need an article transwiki'd to Wiktionary, feel free to bug me at [[wikt:User:Ruakh]]. :-)   —Ruakh_TALK 13:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I've transwiki'd it now; please re-delete. Thanks again! —Ruakh_TALK 14:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Littleenginethatcould.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi - hope you'll go back to that page and read my comment which clarifies how much I agree with you. But you need to read the associated discussions to see how the page is being used to prohibit astrological reference. The discussion on the Algol page reveals just how much problem this page is causing. Hope you'll find time to check that out (in fact, I'd be interested in your feedback on that point if you can find the time) Zac Δ talk 15:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just popping in again to say I think you are doing a great job on that page. Thanks for proving me wrong ! Zac Δ talk 18:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Talk:Ufone/Removed text preserved, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Ufone/Removed text preserved and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Ufone/Removed text preserved during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Muhandes (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I noticed a recent update you made to the Aria Networks page. Now I personally wouldnt edit the article since I work there and theres obvious COI contentions there, let me state that right up front so theres no confusion, but I do keep an eye on the page and a recent update by you isnt really correct. You updated a page to state that they make maintenance software, thats not really true, Aria is at the other end of the network lifecycle, the software they make is all about planning, forecasting and optimal placement of services using the AI engine, not about maintenance of the networks. They are more about what equipment you need to buy, or where you place services in the network to make the most money or best use of your limited resources, not about how to fix or maintain the network. Planning & forecasting rather than maintenance. beardybloke (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I added some references to Point Zero. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Point Zero. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply