Astanhope

Welcome back. R. Baley 01:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC) I have definite written proof in my possession to show that von Hagens has NOT invented the plastination process. It's an article by Oreste Nuzzi published on the scientic magazine Sapere by Urlico Hoepli Editions on the 29th of February 1952(when von Hagens would have been a mere 7 years old). The article describes the process as using sodium silicates and potassium among other chemicals and specifically mentions the use of resins. Please someone take notice as I think this would also invalidate his patents. brutaldeluxe 02:28 08/01/09 (gmt)Brutaldeluxe (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brutaldeluxe (talk • contribs) Reply

A tag has been placed on Abdel Kechiche, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, 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 assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, 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 confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ozgod 23:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Notability tag removed; notability asserted. The article could use exanding; an image; and better sources, though. Rklawton 01:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

While you are correct to reject unsourced or primary-source-only material about a living person, as WP:BLP requires, you might also want to take a bit gentler tack than calling the edits vandalism—I don't see any vandalism there, I more see newer editors who really do want to contribute and aren't aware of sourcing requirements and such. It appears the existence of the column itself is quite real; perhaps you could work with the other editors involved in looking for appropriate secondary sources on the controversy, rather than simply reverts as "vandalism"? I really don't think semi-protection is required right now. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Do not remove sourced information from articles - especially not without explanation. It tends to look a lot like vandalism. Rklawton 20:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Go away. --AStanhope 00:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Rather than link to the DKos diary itself, the source linked back to a partisan blog. I changed it to go to the original source, that is all. I think it's fair I have a chance for my work to be viewed in its original context when possible. I apologize for offending any editors, but I still believe the tone of my article was needlessly snide. I note that when other writers have won an Emmy they are called 'Emmy Award-winning". Compare this to the markedly different tone in the introduction to conservative satirist Dennis Miller and you will see what I mean. It may be vanity, but I have a right to be treated with ordinary respect, I believe. I do not expect people to take time out to defend me, but I should be allowed to keep people from dissing me. Respectfully, A. Whitney Brown Thank you. AWhitneyBrown 17:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, sorry long time no edit (on my part). I had some terribly big issues in real life which naturally limited my wiki-time. I think at this point I'll be able to spend a little more time editing. I did get to check out a few of the pics you linked to (thanks), and it looks like your family was having a good time. I am keeping an eye on your situation, and it looks like things have died down a good bit. If it pops up again I'll do what I can to help. But enough about that for now, because around here at least (if not in real life) it's usually better to let bygones be bygones. Take care, R. Baley 01:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

You're the first person I've seen on here who also lived in the co-ops while at Cal. I lived in CZ my first year then in Stebbins up the street for the other 3. By that time Barrington was just a name and reputation. Go Bears! --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 23:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for uploading Image:Bangkok Wat Pho Monk.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 02:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please see my comments regarding the problems with the section you wish to include in the article. That this breed is more aggressive than a poodle is encyclopedic. Your approach toward making this point, however, isn't appropriate. Included within this analysis is a recommendation regarding how to best accomplish your objective.

Appreciated. Sometimes revert wars are effective, too. --AStanhope 19:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I generally think the attack information should be in the article, I've tried to neutralize it a bit, may still need work, hopefully it will end up suiting all involved. cheers - Mr Bungle | talk 06:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I added a comment to the Presa page re edit wars and would appreciate your comments about the situation so maybe we can work something out. Cheers - Mr Bungle | talk 12:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

WP:CIVIL. Rklawton 16:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

My family is back from overseas - just picked them up at the airport this morning. I can stop drinking now. Finally! --AStanhope 17:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. They sent in an audition tape but due to confidentiality agreements I'd rather not have anything posted about them on here. Feel free to check out their music though! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ga gurl101 (talk • contribs) 04:18, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Pull (band), 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 explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Oli Filth 00:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Pull (band), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Pull (band) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pull (band) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Pull (band) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Oli Filth 08:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the great article! I'm glad it's started. Now I'll go see if there's anything left for me to do :-) -- ke4roh 23:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

A person that is famous for only one thing (eg, their death) is generally not regarded as notable (See WP:BLP1E). Wikipedia is sadly not a memorial. Is there any evidence that she recieved coverage outside of Massachusetts? shoy 17:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

The article mentions none of that. You have sources-- great, add them; you'll prevent future editors from making the mistake I did. But please refrain from making borderline personal attacks in the future. shoy 17:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I asked you a question about it here. Would you rather I had slapped it with an AFD tag? And once again, please don't personally attack me. shoy 18:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I fail to see how the timing of my comment indicated that the article was imminently going to be deleted (which I cannot do, since I am not an admin). I was merely informing you that in its state at that time, I had cause for concern about the notability of the subject. Since you apparently neither want nor need constructive criticism, may I suggest creating the article in your user space and then submitting it at WP:AFC? shoy 18:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

The official language of this state is Urdu. Please do not put in Kashmiri till it becomes official as well. IP198 01:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure why you removed the {{unreferenced}} tag from this article. There are only internal WP links under /*see also*/. Toddstreat1 20:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Who cares? --AStanhope 21:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I moved the page back to its original name. The title isn't the place to define where the paper is located; ideally, the article would simply be called The Times Record, but there needed to be a "disambiguation" word in parentheses to distinguish it from another newspaper by that name (in Maryland, if I recall correctly). As there are not two papers called The Times Record in two cities called Brunswick, there's really no need to bring the state name into it. _{``` W</sub> i k i <sub>W</sub> i s t a h <sub>```} 04:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Take care not to remove reliably sourced, relevant information from an article - especially without discussing it in the article's talk page or even mentioning it in the edit summary. Rklawton (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not you again. I'm afraid that references to the "Lezident" aren't acceptable. I will revert any and all such references that appear in the Huma Abedin article. --AStanhope (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Lezident references are not, but The Times is a reliable source and you are ignoring consensus in removing it. Can you discuss your position on the talkpage please? Skomorokh ^incite 02:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's me again. And if you check the article, you'll see that not only did I remove a Lezident.com reference, but I deleted the related article as well. You, on the other hand, removed the Times - a reliable source, so take heed. Rklawton (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Do you think that Huma Abedin is Hillary's Muslim-Lesbian lover? --AStanhope (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Our opinions on the matter are irrelevant - those of The Times are not. Skomorokh ^incite 04:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Lame! --AStanhope (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I believe there is a dirty tricks campaign, and that's sufficiently sourced for the article at hand. Rklawton (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

There isn't one. The place holders do get us free images from new users and when new users click on the image there should be enough information in simple terms to decide if they can upload the image they want to upload or not. If you think the images are ugly design better ones. As for unprofessional I assume that IMDB's interface is produced by professional web designers there days and they use placeholders.Geni 22:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Or you you could go look on flikr rather than stright remove them. oh and see Category:Reviewed images of people replacing placeholders. I would appear that new users can navigate the system.Geni 01:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wouldn't it be more professional if we just didn't have a picture?68.13.238.221 (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Jonathan Shockley 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 assert 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 article (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. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 07:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Travis Harmon 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 assert 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 article (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. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 07:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Travis and Jonathan 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 assert 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 article (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. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 07:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Red State Update 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 assert 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 article (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. Jmlk17 08:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you truly feel the above stuff is notable, I would suggest placing *all* related material into one overall article, which can effectively describe the people, the group, and the events surrounding their supposed notability. I still don't feel they are notable, but if you can find additional sources, it would make it much more likely for an article to survive and possibly flourish. If you have any questions, just let me know. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 08:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Regarding your request, the simple answer is "no." Speedy deletion is a "normal" deletion process here at Wikipedia: in this case, the article fell afoul of CSD A7, as it failed to assert a claim of notability. There was nothing in the article to suggest that the subject belonged in an encyclopedia. If you feel that there is something encyclopedically notable about this subject, you may try to rewrite an expanded article (you'll need a claim of notability, and better sources if you want it to survive), or you may take the question to deletion review. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

You did ask politely, but your (implied) suggestion that the deletion was other than normal was incorrect. I appreciate your experience at Wikipedia, and so I'm sure you'll appreciate that deletion decisions are best made on the merit of the content, without reference to the contributor. Jimbo Wales himself would find an article on his pet turtle deleted, even if he wrote it lovingly.

On one point, it appears I was ill-informed. This subject has already been the topic of a deletion debate, closed as delete. My speedy deletion was thus valid as a CSD G4, the question of notability having been already discussed and decided by consensus at a community discussion. The article I deleted was actually shorter and of poorer quality than the one deleted at AfD. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea what you mean, unless you are referring to your own conduct. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi AStanhope! I found your name via the m:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, and thought you might care about this discussion: m:Proposals for closing projects/Radical cleanup of Volapük Wikipedia. In case you think that deleting stubs is not the best way to go for the Volapük Wikipedia, you could help us fight against this proposal with your vote. Thanks in advance! Smeira 17:09, 13 jan 2008

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

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

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Even if someone cares enough to keep re-adding the page, it does not make it notable. Surely, you would know that. Undeath (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just because one editor feels strong about his article does not mean that the article is wikipedia worthy. It is jut like the many, many people who make pages about themselves. Undeath (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Rakan Ben Williams, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, links to any particular bookseller (including book reviews on their sites) are automatically considered linkspam. Please provide a link to the ISBN for the book, and/or to independent reviews of the book. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please stop removing the "no free image" images from Wikipedia articles. If you do not feel the "no free image" images should be used at all, you can nominate the image for deletion, but removing images from articles where they are appropriate is considered vandalism. Thanks. Queerudite (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

You clearly have strong feelings about the image, but removing the images is disruptive to the editors who use them to monitor articles. And vandalism can result in being blocked from making edits to Wikipedia. Wouldn't it be more constructive to nominate the image itself for deletion if it is truly unnecessary? Or replace it with a less "ugly" version? After all, Wikipedia is consensus-based. Queerudite (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I honestly find them helpful, but I can appreciate your perspective, too. I do feel strongly though that removing them article by article is disruptive and unhelpful. They should either all be removed or all remain, and that decision shouldn't be made unilaterally. Queerudite (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think they are a helpful reminder to less experienced editors that they can upload a free image if they have one. They also allow for the categorization of articles that lack images, which allows editors to more easily monitor those pages.

Are we in agreement though that the images themselves should either be all deleted or all retained by a consensus-driven decision making process? I'd like to undo the edits you made recently that removed the "no free image" images until the fundamental question of whether they should be used at all is resolved. Thanks. Queerudite (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The whole of Wikipedia is consensus based, see WP:Consensus. Queerudite (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Mike Smith (actor), you will be blocked from editing. I appreciate that you feel that Wikipedia would be improved by removing placeholder images, but there is a constructive/consensus-based way to do this and a disruptive/unilateral way to do it. Systematically blanking placeholder images, one at a time is a disruptive way. Please stop. Queerudite (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

  This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Dafydd ab Hugh, you will be blocked from editing. Queerudite (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

• You are still doing this despite the above warning? I've had a look through your contribs and you don't appear to be making any headway with this campaign so far. Do you need more outside opinions? MickMacNee (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

You may have a point about deletions, but please: keep to a higher level of discourse? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

  With regard to your comments on User talk:Seicer: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. seicer | talk | contribs 01:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, this is about your comment regarding notable residents in "Chandigarh", I could not agree more. Is there a way to stop the advertising? Anthony.Gonsalves (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Nepalese royal massacre. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

As you no doubt noticed before you removed sourced content on the above page, we are working on building a consensus. Your edit was disruptive to that process. Please se the talk page for relevant discussion--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please see my comments/questions. Regards. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

also see this proposal. Best --Kleinzach (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there!!! You are welcome to join the new WikiProject Thailand, please sign in. We need as many editors from Thailand as possible!!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Remote Area Medical, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remote Area Medical. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Orange Mike | Talk 19:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.

That discussion must produce a conclusion.

We originally asked "Should the addition of this box [example right] be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" (See introduction).

Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.

Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.

I arrived here on your discussion page by accident after looking for users who had nearly the same IP as mine. (You reported User:71.100.1.7 for violating 3RR).

I read some of your user page and was impressed by the number of articles you had started, finding your talk page to be chocked full notices for deletion.

Recently one of the only article I started was nominated for deletion as a personal attack made in response to another article I had written in the Wikia. The Wikia article uses logic to define, support and defend the existance of God.

The nomination for deletion was claimed to be for the reason of original research and not being notable which it was neither.

Consequently I learned that the user who had nominated it for deletion was born in Beijing in 1988 where he was raised as an atheist, indoctrinated as a Communist, shipped off at age 12 to Atlanta, entered the public school system for three years, move up to Georgia tech for four more years and is now a graduate student in robotics and preparing for a career at JPL where he is this week.

If you are not an atheist then you might wonder how such a thing could occur within the United States. If you are then it would be pointless to continue.

Since th user is Chinese, however, I was hoping you might be ables to give me some insight since one thing about him that I have noticed is his tendency to ignore fact. For instance, he did not read the primary reference for the article and it appears that neither did any member of his cabal who likewise voted for deletion.

Throughout his commentary elsewhere there is great evidence of knowledge he lacks, such as religion, but I am curious about much more than that. He must have an agenda and I would like to know what it is. All of the robotics people at JPL, Carnegie-Melon and Georgia Tech appear to be connected in one way or another with the old Soviet Block or current Asian countries with Communist ties.

Any insight would be welcome and appreciated. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.0.126 (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually it was legal for a brief period. Don't assume its untrue just because you never heard it before. ThaddeusB (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

A simple Google search returns numerous results: [1] See also numerous current news stories relating to Palin, all stating it was legal at the time: [2] --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please don't add unsourced info to the article, this has been discussed many times, and wikipedia simply doesn't allow the inclusion of unsourced info or original research. If you find sources supporting the deleted info, please add it back WITH the source - if you can't find a source, it can't be included in the article. Also, let me note that a reference has to actually support the information in the article, adding just any link to an article about a person isn't good enough. Thanks. --Minderbinder (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Adam! I'm helping the Global Fund for Women think about how to use technologies like Wikis effectively. In preparation, I thought I'd check out what the world is saying about the organization, and I noticed that you started the Wikipedia page in 2006. Can you tell me what inspired you to start the page? I think the context would really help folks there understand what all this actually is and what it means. :-) Many thanks! Eekim (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Cookin' with Coolio, 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. Karppinen (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I notice that you are part of Category:Inclusionist_Wikipedians. I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia.

Ikip (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the message! By the way I'm talking at Berkman Center at Harvard on Wed March 25, so if you're in the area do stop by! [3] Or if you know other folks, let them know. -- Fuzheado | Talk 22:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, as far as I know, the best way of getting a copy of a deleted article is to contact the deleting administrator; check the log for the article. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 14:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey. What I deleted was only a redirect. You're looking for Wikipedia:Unusual articles, which still exists. Wizardman 15:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

What did you mean by this edit? At first I thought it was some sort of hoax, but maybe I misunderstood. Jehochman ^Talk 00:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

A quick look at your "contribs" here on the Wikipedia reveals in an instant that your Wikipedia account exists solely to make edits that are biased politically. These acts by their very nature are POV and run counter to the rules by which the Wikipedia is run.

If your interest is to politicize the Wikipedia to push certain points of view, I suggest you find something else to do. --AStanhope (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

First of all, not all of my edits have even been to politically related articles, secondly, all I have done to the Van Jones is remove left-wing bias. I have not added any biased content to Wikipedia, but notwithstanding your whole argument is hypocritical as your own edits, and comments on discussion pages have revealed your own political biases. --Tdl1060 (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

!votes like "keep - Well written, comprehensive reference" when the article has no referencing whatsoever and no chance at passing WP:GNG are invalid, as are things like "The youth angle makes this article more interesting than it would be otherwise". This isn't a disagreement based on positions, your votes are unsound and not at all valid. Please try and explain how the articles pass our inclusion guidelines, since current votes come close to WP:ILIKEIT. Ironholds (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

No need for snarky comments like that; I would've commented even if you'd voted delete. "the youth angle makes this article interesting, keep" - how does that explain how the article passes WP:GNG, which is the basic problem here? I've got no problem with users who believe that articles should be kept and will try in as many ways within the constraints of guideline and policy to keep them, but "I like it therefore I must vote to keep it even though the vote is nonsensical" is, well, nonsensical. Ironholds (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Excellent article, actually - I've read it before. Note the way he does it, or did it, though. "I found press citations and argued for keeping the Jitterbug telephone, a large-keyed cell phone with a soft earpiece for elder callers; and Vladimir Narbut, a minor Russian Acmeist poet whose second book, Halleluia, was confiscated by the police; and Sara Mednick, a San Diego neuroscientist and author of Take a Nap! Change Your Life; and Pyro Boy, a minor celebrity who turns himself into a human firecracker on stage". He finds (found?) additional sources and used them as a keep rationale. If he'd voted essentially WP:ITSUSEFUL as I've seen you done on occasion then his vote would have the same weight as it did when he said "what harm can it do". Ironholds (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent Lutheran Diocese that it's "Nice to have as a reference if they appear in the news for any reason" is not an argument that many Wikipedians will recognise as valid or according to policy. We don't have articles on people, organisations or other topics just on the off-chance that they might appear in the news someday. Please read WP:NOTABILITY to see how your view goes against consensus. Fences&Windows 22:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

• "nothing that requires the voter to comment beyond their vote to KEEP or DELETE." - actually, there is. AfD is a discussion, not a vote - in theory, it's down to the strength of arguments, not to numbers. Not all AfD comments are valid, either - see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, for example. We're not prepared to accept the !votes and comments of other users; they can be discussed, their legitimacy disputed and counter-arguments put forward. It isn't a personal standard of "valid" I'm enforcing here, it's the WP standard of what constitutes an argument at AfD. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSUSEFUL are widely considered to be poor arguments unlikely to be taken into account by the closing admin, particularly when the comments you've made don't reference guidelines or policy in any way, or explain how to get round the minor stumbling blocks of the article failing WP:GNG completely. Comments like "The youth angle makes this article more interesting" are invalid and irrelevant in that they don't deal with the problem of the article. When I see delete votes, I expect to say delete votes which say either "delete per (insert guideline/policy/whatever), based on (this research I have done which shows the article fails whatever guideline/policy)" or at least "per this above user who has provided a full, policy/guideline based argument", and the same applies for keep votes. When I see a keep vote that completely ignores the lack of any third-party sources, I think it's a good idea to query it, regardless of how rude and snide the response is. And FYI, I would have been nicer to a newbie, because they aren't as experienced or knowledgeable as an experienced editor. As an experienced editor, however, you should know that these sorts of comments are invalid, as are offensive responses to a generally reasonable initial message. Ironholds (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Amanda Marcotte, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Marcotte (3rd nomination)‎ . Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Alison ^❤ 05:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

This [4] bit of editing is probably not the world's greatest idea. --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Content

That's pretty weak as an argument; comes across as a version of WP:UPANDCOMING. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

??WTF?? All I did was mention that an argument made was a somewhat weak one (although I believe the outcome of the discussion in question was satisfactory to you). I see no reason for spilling bile and vituperation onto my talk page, complete with a nasty and misogynistic edit summary. I have reverted the incivil comment, and hope we can interact more productively in the future. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of edits to this page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Terri Schiavo case/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The article Azeezaly Jaffer has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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. -- Rico 22:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

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

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huma Abedin (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

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

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehren Watada (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I just nominated an article that you have contributed to: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America. Wolfview (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, very much, for your kind words at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America about my work on the article. Much appreciated. However, please note that in the future I would strongly advise you to be more polite in your choices of wording on Wikipedia, especially in Wikipedia-process-type-discussions such as at WP:AFD, and elsewhere. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Please note I hope you ignore Cirt's wise advice.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted this edit that you made 1 August 2008. It looks like vandalism and the heading in the edit history was misleading. If it was not vandalism then please supply the source when reinserting it (see WP:PROVEIT). -- PBS (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rakan Ben Williams 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/Rakan Ben Williams 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. IQinn (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Message delivered by Dominic at 08:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.Reply

You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 09:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Adam, I'm contacting you because we need some Thai translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on th.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Thai Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Reply

PEarley (WMF) (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Adam, just an update. User:Taweetham has made a short post for me to th.wiki, but the full message would still be useful to post. Let me know how it's going. Regards, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Epeefleche (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

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

WP:ONEEVENT

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. Brad Dyer (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Here is the article as you created it. If you want it to survive, please add material about some other aspect/stage of Garen's career, and please add reliable, disinterested sources for all of it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for uploading File:Image-Perry's nut house belfast maine.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the image description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Thanks again for your cooperation. Kelly ^hi! 08:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

The article For Love Not Lisa has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO

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. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article For Love Not Lisa 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/For Love Not Lisa 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. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA on October 16! (drop-in any time, 6-9pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

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

NN youth summer camp. No significant coverage in reliable sources, article sourced only through its own website.

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. Ravenswing 02:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 14:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Red State Update 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/Red State Update (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 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Sirkowski01.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

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

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply