User talk:AKMask

This user may have left Wikipedia. AKMask has not edited Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Verification edit: I am meta:User:Mask

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2
• /Archive 3
• /Archive 4
• /Archive 5

Post at the bottom, keep it sort of neat, and use User_talk:AKMask/Steamroom if you want to blow off some steam.

A while ago you mentioned on Talk:The Fields of Athenry that the lyrics were over a hundred years old and therefore not copyrighted and therefore reproducible in the article. Do you have sources for this claim? The article itself states twice that it was written in the 1980s (actually, most other sources I can find say 1979). I'm trying to find out because obviously the lyrics need to go if the song's still under copyright, unless we contact Pete St John and get permission. Marnanel 12:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hurricanehink/Active

Wikipedia:No one really cares, a page you created, 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/Wikipedia:No one really cares and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:No one really cares during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.--12 Noon ^2¢ 16:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help for Image:Mar Thoma Syrian Church Crest.png. It is now working properly. - Tinucherian (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that quality edits matter, not quantity. Thanks but I already knew all that. I'm still improving that page. Any comments?--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 02:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I've posted a response to your comment here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Need an admintrator's intervention. I hope that clarifies things, but please let me know if you still have questions or concerns. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

#wikipedia-en [25/04/2008, 05:17:57] <Mask> White_Cat, you have come such a long way from throwing fair use images everywhere when I first met you. Commons has helped you see some of the fundamentals in our goals, and not just practice. You dont get many compliments due to youre gruff manner, so I just wanted to poke in and say how much I liked your AN post, buddy

If you liked the short version, you will love the long version: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Edit point alpha. :) -- Cat ^chi? 22:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

responded. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The person who restored the text supports the merge. It's been conclusively shown that the redirect harms discussion. Read the RfC. The first commenter was quite confused about the status of the article. Please revert your redirect, as it's not helpful to furthering discussion at all. S. Dean Jameson 04:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, your assertion that "consensus" has been reached is at least debateable, and the very topic of the RfC, which makes the need for the article to be up DURING the RfC even more necessary. S. Dean Jameson 04:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've ruined the entire premise of your essay Wikipedia:No one really cares with Chemical properties of Mr. Spock's fake ears. Shrimp Catcher (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Just dropping in about something I noticed on your page...

It says under "Things that annoy me" that you are annoyed by bad English, and yet under "You Got Somethin' to Say to Me?" you spell "alternatively" without the "e".

Forgive me if this is very snobbish to point out, but quite frankly, I am regrettably bored with nothing better to do at 11:00 post meridiem.

Truly, LaPianista! «talk» 04:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm contacting you because you participated in the discussion about the EU entry in List of countries and outlying territories by total area in the past. So I concluded that you might be interested to know that two editors currently push for a change in the article structure that is in conflict with the standing consensus resulting out of our past discussion.

The consensus was to include the EU entry in the initial text of the article, but not in the actual table (even unnumbered). — Whereas the change that is currently pushed would result in moving the EU entry to the very end of the article, even after the references/sources table. The result can be seen here: [1].

The standing consensus was not my favorite solution, as I would like to include the EU into the very list (unnumbered), but I content myself with the standing compromise. Whether you agree to or oppose the change, I strongly feel that the article's structure should not be changed without a proper discussion and maybe even a new vote before changing the standing compromise. You might want to give your point of view in the current discussion at

Talk:List_of_countries_and_outlying_territories_by_total_area#Positioning_of_EU_.26_Antarctica_etc.

Cheers and take care, MikeZ (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say that this was to most eloquent thing I've ever read, but damned if you didn't hit the nail square on the head. well said! --Ludwigs2 15:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you contributed to Morse v. Frederick in the past, and just wanted to let you know that the article is currently undergoing a Good article review. Feel free to contribute more to the article if you wish! --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was very nice of you. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree very much with what you say; I have to remind myself of the same thing often enough. And thank you for your kind comments too. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...that you run off to report my latest edit summary as well. Wouldn't want you to be accused of lacking good faith? Just making sure you know it had nothing to do with Sanchez. Wouldn't want you having the reputation of someone that spreads false information. ;] - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 09:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I did it. :] - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 09:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AKMask, please look it up, I added references and some bibliography. Thanks, Barefact (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I feel uncomfortable removing tags that I did not initiate, could you please do it for me if you find refs satisfactory. If still they are not, please let me know. Thanks, Barefact (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. Barefact (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Article on the upcoming movie Possessions (film 2009) does meet the notability criteria, the tag youp laced does not qualify. Nefirious (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC) I have put the article for deletion review. Please discuss Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 August 9.[reply]

There are several points in the current article that are designed to distort who I am or my work. The lede says I'm an "embed on assignment in Iraq". I've spent just as much time in Iraq. I'm not nor have I ever been a blogger. I've never "blogged" and yet the article claims blogging and commentary citing my participation in Fox Forums. The truth is that I've written far more hard news for Foxnews.com and have only participated in Fox Forum when requested to by the editor. The current focus of the article on blogging is meant to minimize my credentials as a reporter. I'm also likened to Rich Merritt and Jeff Gannon. Two comparisons that are meant to smear me and are also awkwardly placed in the article

You said that I should not be drawn into petty disputes but these issues have been in the article for two years and despite many protests no one has even bothered to answer why or how these comments have been put into the article. Could you ask for some explanation or move to have the wording replaced? Also, there was an image of Ann Coulter and myself in the article and it was removed. The image is, however, a part of the general controversy. Any word on why it was removed?

thanks

Blue Marine (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good contribs on this article AKM. As Matt notes above, it has been an uphill battle to bring balance and neutrality to the page. Doc Tropics 15:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between "balance and neutrality" and whitewashing. ;] -     allstar▼echo     17:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and there is a reason you were banned from the article and related pages. Persuing this further is a borderline violation and any actual disruption will be reported immediately. Doc Tropics 18:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you much. And I just go by Mask, its easier to remember then AKM ;) --M^ask? 07:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you participated at the above discussion, this is to let you know I've proposed an alternate wording (for reasons stated there). However, it is essentially the same proposal. If you have any objections to it, please note them down. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not discuss your concerns before putting the project up for deletion? You have had ample time and opportunity to discuss why you are concerned about the project. How often have you entered a discussion about an article or a project with a notification of deletion? How are you usually recieved when you proceed this way? Ikip (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, y'know. It's one way to start a discussion, and we get input from people we wouldn't otherwise. The MFD will run its natural course, and see what happens. Do unto others, right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Related to this, I removed the posting at AN/I. I assume you weren't intending to canvass, but it did come across that way. → ROUX ₪ 20:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what you want me to apologise for; I stated quite clearly that it didn't look like you intended to canvass, but that the appearance was such. With such a contentious MfD it's better to not have the appearance of impropriety even if--which I do believe--your motives were pure. → ROUX ₪ 14:02, 19 September 2009 (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) 02:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Noloop (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Request for mediation concerning Many Jesus-related articles, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 22:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Hello there. You recently participated in a discussion at WP:ANI regarding the systematic removal of Media Matters for America as a reliable source. I've started an RfC regarding MMfA, MRC, FAIR, Newsbusters etc. Please participate on the Reliable Sources Talk page here. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Wikipedia policy, the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate here whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comment, I'm not taking it personally. So far, we have a civil discussion on the issue I raised. Whether or not it ends the way I suggested it should I feel it is important that the wider community discusses the issue of editors who continually badger opponents at xFDs. My view is that if the nominator puts forward a really good rationale, then they don't need to keep challenging each and every keep vote. Admins are generally good at assessing the consensus of AfD discussions and recognising invalid votes on either side. In the odd case where a mistake is made, there is a mechanism in place to get the decision reviewed. Mjroots (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you closed the discussion. I don't agree with it being closed, but I'll not press the issue further. By raising my concerns at ANI, more editors will have become familiar with MMNs editing, and hopefully there will be more scrutiny of that in the future. As others had pointed out, it wouldn't be so bad if MMN was to contribute in a civil manner. He has shown that he can do this when he wants to. Mjroots (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation of the closure, it is appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mjroots. MickMacNee (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It appears the ceritfier needs to be someone who has tried and failed to resolve the dispute, and not just some other person. Would you agree to certifying this as an active dispute, or are you happy that Mjroots accepts your closure? I don't personally think he does, and therefore, there is an active dispute here. MickMacNee (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

for the deprecating remarks directed to those of us "obsessed" with RCPatrol. Dlohcierekim 15:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome! Anything we can do to help push people away from the 'WP as an RPG' mindset where you have to level up quick and templates substitute for discussion helps a bit. -- ۩ Mask 15:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, people like me don't even deserve to be here. I am duly and rightly chastened by your righteous judgment. Dlohcierekim 17:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thats what this is about. Well, sounds like you came away with the right result then. -- ۩ Mask 20:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your comments at ANI over vandal fighting are true that it's kind of a no-brainer. I usually do it when I have time to kill and want to work on the project, but don't sell it short there are over 18,000 incidents of blatant vandalism (the YOU SUCK, THIS SUCK, COCK AND BALLS, etc) every single day on the project. That's just to most obvious stuff, not the BLP or POV stuff. I wish more editors took the time to do it. I usually see about three or four people at any given time plus the bots, but we still see a lot falling through the crack :/ --Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh agree 100 percent. I even mentioned in the post that most of us should be putting some time into it every so often, dont think I believe its not important, but instead pointing out the people who do nothing but that. Who think its some way to race for an edit count. What dloh and i were lamenting above arent the folks who roll up their sleeves and pitch in from time to time but the fools who dont realize that if theres a new user screwing around with this shiny new website they found will respond and engage when left with a personal note, but likely wont pay any attention to one of those absurd canned messages that they can tell is machine-added. Or who would splatter vandal warnings all over *your* talkpage. I wasn't denigrating you, more letting you in on the joke. No one cares that someone once slapped a templated warning on your page, and it didn't need an ANI thread. No one cares about those stupid things. Hell, they started out in the Counter-Vandalism Unit and when we deleted that project for, well, all the reasons mentioned, they somehow escaped. You're doing a fine job. Don't fret :) -- ۩ Mask 16:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, thanks for the reply. I agree the canned messages suck. I usually let them fly when it's blatant vandalism and usually to ip addresses. When it looks like a good faith first edit or someone not understanding how to do something I try to follow up with a personal note that's actually helpful.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User,

You previously participated at the discussion regarding the collapsing of spolier's at Talk:The_Mousetrap. I invite you to comment at a similar discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler#Proposal.

Many Thanks

Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 22:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am hoping you can clarify something. I thought that WP:CLEANSTART was specifically so an editor who had changed their behavior for the better could get a clean start. I also thought it specifically says it is not a tool to hide previous bad behavior while committing the same bad behavior on their cleanstart account:

"Note that while a genuine clean start is not considered an illegitimate use of alternate accounts, a user who then re-enters disputes and topics where their conduct was likely to be noticed (blocks, disputes, disruptive editing, contentious and edit warred topics, and the like) may be seen as evading scrutiny. The community would usually expect to know that the individual has a past involvement unless this was clearly not controversial, and especially if there is still non-trivial involvement or involvement in disputes or editing controversies. Clean start is not a means to resume similar conduct while concealing a past track record."

If my understanding is flawed, please let me know so I can rescind my vote, but it pretty much seems to clearly state such on the cleanstart page (and related sections on sockpuppetry that it refers to). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 04:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think you're misunderstanding it, we're just emphasizing different parts. Really, at the end of the day he's either doing something bad enough to be blocked or he isn't, and it doesn't really matter who he used to be. I don't really have an opinion on that question, I don't know the backstory, but who he used to be seems pretty irrelevant. -- ۩ Mask

11:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I still cannot find that part. Every part I can find along those lines indicates such protection is granted if they do not violate the purpose of cleanstart (which they have). So perhaps there is a part I simply am not finding. In the 8 or 10(?) years* I've been here (heck, way back when, IIRC, there werent even real accounts), the only time I've seen such steadfast refusal to provide a summary of their activities as requested (much less in a way that does not out the editor) is when the actions (very similar to these) were being performed by a rogue admin and being hidden by other admins. There was such a big incident many years ago. Regardless, my request, which it clearly states, is not to out the editor, but instead to be provided a non-identifying summary of their actions (ie: 7 blocks for doing (something), 20 warnings for (whatever), etc) in as simple a fashion as that. There's what's baffling. And there's what makes it seem there is more to hide here (I dropped Wikipedia for 5+ years after the admin incident (which I was not involved in - just watched it unfold) that I note above.

• Related note to clear it up in case you were wondering, I have never edited under any other account - I finally created one when I decided to do more than just grammar and punctuation work and decided to provide the (possibly vast) amount of info about me for full transparency. My previous use of Wikipedia was all as an anon

ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 17:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, my goal is to get Mick to abide by WP:CIVIL, not to get him blocked. If it takes a few blocks along the way to achieve that, then so be it. Mjroots (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MJR, blocks to get Mick to be civil have already been tried, and failed. But I doubt banning him will totsally succeed either, as his "personalitly" would make him a very effective troller. AKM, you seem to agree with Mick most of the time. Try disagreeing with him a few times, and see what happens to you. I'm not suggesting you "pretend" to disagree with him, but try genuinely playing devil's advocate with him in a few different places. I think you'll find he turns on you very quickly, and that you won't enjoy the experience in any way. Unless you like incivlil coments being made about your intelligience, that is. - BilCat (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bil, i have. I've been around this place as an IP for 6 years, as a registered user for 5. Mick and I have met in conflict. He was on the other side in the Fair Use Wars. He spit vitriol. And then we came out on top. His side lost. He moved on. He doesn't hold a grudge. It's one of the reasons I don't mind advocating for him. I know if he fucks up, I can walk over to his talkpage and let him know he took a major turn towards the douche. He can evaluate that as a comment on his behavior and I dont have to worry about it impinging on our working relationship in the future. -- ۩ Mask 18:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing you've said rings true to my expreience. Perhaps someday you'll experience the other side of him, but until then, there's no use arguing with you. - BilCat (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you I have. Whether that 'rings true' to you or not is not really a concern of mine. Should you wish to verify though, go digging around in the archives from 2007 or so. -- ۩ Mask 18:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What an amazing conversation here; are you Mask, talking of the same McNee we all know and don't love - or have you got the wrong person? I have studiously been ignoring so many threads about him for months on ANI and elsewhere, but when I see you talk such claptrap, I have to say that is mot my experience of him. The very hint of the word "Giano" on ANI is enough to bring bring him out like a ferret up a drainpipe. I have no interest in whether he stays of goes (so long as he stays out of my hair) but please don't try and sanctify him thus. He is not a person to be deified.  Giacomo  18:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm avoiding Mick too, but he's making it more difficult, as he';s now badgerin people I think of as my friends on their talk pages. He needs to be stopped, but the enablers are making that very difficult to do. - BilCat (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just rise above him, I have been here since 2004, I have seen them come and go. I know it's hard, but it is the best way. It's rather like when a dull repetitious old play that one has seen a thousand times, come onto TV - zapp it and find something more entertaining. I'm a great beleiver in giving people "enough rope." When the going gets tough go bury yourself in writing a brand new page - some people find that very irritating as its something they can't emulate.  Giacomo  19:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is some of the most sensible advice I've ever seen handed out on the wiki. kudos. -- ۩ Mask 19:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment on any of that Giano, only my interactions with him. I havent participated in any ANI threads about you in a couple years, and have not read any of them. I work well with him, he works well with me. I also work well with the rest of the community. Apparently him not so much. He went through 3 or 4 weeks hating me, then he moved on. Your mileage may vary. -- ۩ Mask 19:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an "ostrich" person, and I sincerly believe that you don't make problems go away by ignoring them. Mick seems to enjoy badgering others (badgerer porn, perhaps?), and that isn't decreasing. - BilCat (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one has ever accused me of being a head burying ostrich before, so that's a first! My point was, employ a little subtlety, when so many others are watching, let them do the work - if one's in a field of sheep, one does not need to "baaaaaah" oneself. Be the wise fox who lies in a bush and watches (which is not an old Sicilian proverb, but ought to be). These days, I love watching Wikipedia antics - they are very entertaining (albeit repetitious). I am waitng for "Boy Wonder" to materialise, that's always so very funny - especially with the everchanging daft ammendum to the sig.  Giacomo  19:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SOrry, I wasn't accusing you of that, just stating that for me, it would be that. Btw, he's been given enough rope to hang the moom from the sun now, so much that we're all tripping over the rope. It's past time to bring in the slack, as evidenced by the increasing number of ANIs filed both by and agaisnt him in the past few months. - BilCat (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per many occasions on the talk page for the Northern Ireland article, I find it hard to believe that Mick would ever move on. Especially when there are Irish editors conspiring against him... WikiuserNI (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly doubt that anyone is conspiring against McNee - people just don't like him; there's a world of difference. If you have proof then post it - otherwise just accept that McNee brings most of his problems upon himself.  Giacomo  18:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giacomo, I doubt it too, especially since he suggested I was one of those pushing fringe theories upon him. WikiuserNI (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Franchiser tests lure of Tapioca 'boba' balls beyond California.". Los Angeles Business Journal. August 19, 2002. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-25881166_ITM. Retrieved 2008-09-23.
^ "Taiwan tapioca tea on tap in Palo Alto, Mountain View". San Francisco Chronicle. August 23, 2002. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/08/23/PN167816.DTL&type=travel. Retrieved 2008-09-23.
^ "Quench your thirst at Tapioca Express". The Daily Cougar. June 8, 2006. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-124906382.html. Retrieved 2008-09-23.
^ "TAPIOCA WITH YOUR TEA?". Rocky Mountain News. September 27, 2002. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-92220160.html. Retrieved 2008-09-23.
^ "Missing dog is Kaheka Street pawmark". Star Bulletin. January 10, 2006. http://starbulletin.com/2006/01/10/news/story09.html. Retrieved 2008-09-23.
^ {{cite news |title=Tapioca & milk tea beverages |url=http://www.thefranchisemall.com/franchises/details/10488-0-Tapioca_Express.htm |work=[[TheFranchiseMall] |date=October 04, 2010 |accessdate=2010-10-04 }}
^ {{cite news |title=Sampling Readers’ Choice Eateries |url=http://www.midweek.com/content/columns/zigzagguide_article |work=[[Midweek] |date=March 18, 2005 |accessdate=2010-10-03 }}
^ {{cite news |title=Sampling Readers’ Choice Eateries |url=http://www.midweek.com/content/columns/zigzagguide_article |work=[[Midweek] |date=March 18, 2005 |accessdate=2010-10-03 }}
^ {{cite news |title=Tapioca & milk tea beverages |url=http://www.thefranchisemall.com/franchises/details/10488-0-Tapioca_Express.htm |work=[[TheFranchiseMall] |date=October 04, 2010 |accessdate=2010-10-04 }}
^ "Franchiser tests lure of Tapioca 'boba' balls beyond California". All Business. August 19 2002. http://www.allbusiness.com/north-america/united-states-california-metro-areas/254192-1.html. Retrieved 2010-04-10.
^ "Franchiser tests lure of Tapioca 'boba' balls beyond California". All Business. August 19 2002. http://www.allbusiness.com/north-america/united-states-california-metro-areas/254192-1.html. Retrieved 2010-04-10.
^ {{cite news |title=ABA Honors Tapioca Express Founders With "Strength Of Teamwork" Award |url=http://www.thefranchisemall.com/news/articles/12895-0.htm |work=[[TheFranchiseMall] |date=November 14, 2003 |accessdate=2010-10-04 }}
^ {{cite news |title=Los Angeles County-based Top 25 Firms |url=http://www.thefranchisemall.com/news/articles/12894-0.htm |work=[[TheFranchiseMall] |date=August 02, 2004 |accessdate=2010-10-04 }}
^ "UC San Diego Cafe and Restaurants". University of California San Diego. August 19 2008. http://universitycenters.ucsd.edu/eat.php#Tapioca%20Express. Retrieved 2010-04-10.
^ "Quench your thirst at Tapioca Express". http://www.thefranchisemall.com/news/articles/12895-0.htm. Retrieved 2010-10-04.
^ "Yelp Reviews of Tapioca Express". Yelp!. August 20 2010. http://www.yelp.com/biz/tapioca-express-san-gabriel-4. Retrieved 2010-10-04.
^ {{cite news |title=Los Angeles County-based Top 25 Firms |url=http://www.thefranchisemall.com/news/articles/12894-0.htm |work=[[TheFranchiseMall] |date=August 02, 2004 |accessdate=2010-10-04 }}
^ {{cite news |title=ABA Honors Tapioca Express Founders With "Strength Of Teamwork" Award |url=http://www.thefranchisemall.com/news/articles/12895-0.htm |work=[[TheFranchiseMall] |date=November 14, 2003 |accessdate=2010-10-04 }}
http://www.feryah.com/?p=6722

Sorry, I forgot to sign my contribution at WP:ANI#Merridew behaviour and your comment drew my attention to it, thank you. I've signed now, but obviously I mustn't refactor your comment about "the unsigned post above", although you may wish to. You could always add the {{unsigned}} template the next time I forget to sign, I won't be offended, honest :) Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. And if anything like that happens in the future, feel free to refactor. It was a formatting note, do with that however you want. As long as it's not my actual comment, you can futz with it as you like. -- ۩ Mask 22:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:AN/ISUCKSTHELIFEOUTOFYOU, 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/Wikipedia:AN/ISUCKSTHELIFEOUTOFYOU and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:AN/ISUCKSTHELIFEOUTOFYOU 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. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:AN/ISUCKSTHELIFEOUTOFYOU. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:AN/ISUCKSTHELIFEOUTOFYOU redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined this speedy deletion, because it does not fit the A7 categories. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly logical reasoning. However

1. The A7 standard is "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significance". "importance" or "significance" is noted as "distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability" - most admins take the standard to be some assertion that it might be important. In this case, a declaration from a state legislature is evidence of significance, albeit not to our normal standards.
2. Such a standard applies to "a real person, individual animal(s), organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content" and nothing more, unfortunately; anything that falls outside this should be WP:PRODded. I appreciate that you picked the one you saw as most appropriate, but the options are not based on what we as individuals think are appropriate criteria, but rather on what the criteria actually are. Trust me, I'd quite like to expand a few of the categories - can we not have something for WP:MADEUP? - but consensus is relatively settled for the moment. If you want to suggest other possible CSD tags, open up a chat on the talkpage.

Hope this has helped; I do sympathise with your frustration at seeing such non-notable dross on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, with a few exceptions, admins are bound to apply policy, and to do so in a neutral manner regardless of their personal feelings. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[3] First off, let me be clear that I'm not seeking you to reopen the thread. Second, thanks for taking the time to look into it. Third, the reason is was brought to AN/I has nothing to do with the content of any article, or even any page. It has to do with the behavior of a particular editor, who has been the subject of multiple WP:AN/I] threads regarding his behavior. Multiples forms of WP:DR have been attempted, without resolution. It's entirely appropriate to bring his behavior to WP:AN/I to seek administrator input on how best to proceed. Prior to closing, only one administrator had commented on the thread. If the rampant insulting behavior continues, you've left me with no venue for raising the problem. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know it didnt have to do with the article at first, but now theres tables about who reverted what version. Hammer, I'm not disagreeing with you on any of the edits you or him made. The point is when an ANI thread descends into both of you citing how many times the other had been dragged to ANI, it's clearly not going to solve anything. And no other venue? Did you forget about RfC? Or WQA? Or MedCab? Or ArbCom? If it's as serious as you say, there are plenty of venues. In the meantime, both of you need to take a breather. -- ۩ Mask 18:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as serious as he says, that's for sure. Infact, his inseperable colleague Delta/Beta aside, as far as I can recall I've never received so much as a warning from anyone for what he deems to be "assaults" on him, as they are by and large, fair and permitted comment on his massive and repeated tendentious and incivil behaviours in the field of NFCC, and/or his incorrect policy beliefs such as whether the concept of minimal use is decided by consensus or not (still no reply from him on that score - tendentious and incivil, WP.101). If his ideas of what does and does not constitute civil behaviour here were remotely true, then nothing would get done or even decided. The site would simply grind to a halt, as everybody but him realises. I don't object to the thread being reopened if he has anymore dirty laundry to air, as it's most annoying for me at least how many times people blame me when they get none of my blood from ANI due to such early drama avoiding closures. I even got criticised in that thread for having used ANI correctly to report someone who was making attrocious actual assaults on editors, and got rightly indef-blocked for their disgusting behaviour. I still cannot quite work that one out. He knows all the venues open to him, just like he knows I know them too, but which doesn't him stop talking down to me in the manner seen at the Rfc and elsewhere, as all tendentious editors are prone to do, inbetween his special brand of these tedious and childish invocations of 'Hammersoft's Law' as some sort of excuse for not doing what your obliged to do if you want your opinions to stand in something like an Rfc. As tendentious editors are also prone to do. Apologies for intruding here, but I think I have a right to reply in these situations where I sense my ears are burning. MickMacNee (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mick, shut up. Im not saying that to be mean, just as someone who knows how to defuse drama. Youre contribution to the disscussion is not helpful. Who cares if someone drags your name through the mud because they're pissed? Its random guy on the internet, this stuff just really isnt worth getting this worked up over and you're just giving your opponents rope by which to hang you. Go work on a page. Go read a book. I dont care what you do, just for the love of god step back for a second and put stuff in perspective. Nobody saying anything here, including myself, are really worth the mental agony you seem to go through whenever people start swinging. -- ۩ Mask 20:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(taking the advice of others and ignoring MickmacNee) @Mask; WP:WQA isn't the forum for the issue, as the instructions at WP:WQA note and other threads regarding MickMacNee's behavior have noted. An RfC has already been done, with no apparent improvement in his behavior. Formal mediation specifically states as a prerequisite that mediation is inappropriate for disputes involving an editor's behavior. ArbCom was tried back in November, and they rejected it it 4-5. Frankly, I'm at a loss as to how to proceed with an editor behaving as he has, with such open hostility and direct personal attacks when every venue seems to reject doing anything about it. I guess the message is that WP:CIVIL really isn't policy (or in the very least a policy nobody is willing to enforce), and it's ok to fling immature obscenities at fellow editors. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If ArbCom rejected it, it might be telling you something, that the issues aren't that big. Mick's a pain to deal with, it's true (look up thread) but he's not being malicious and you aren't making much of an attempt to meet him half way. Civility is about compromise and actions, not so much words. People who are obstinate will be thrown under the bus, those that are hard to deal with are not. Mick's not hard to deal with when disagreeing, just look at us. The dispute that set this up were on opposite sides of. Give it a shot. Step away for a while, when you come back skip past how he says things and address what he says. The combative language dies away when he realizes he's getting a fair hearing, even if you decide you dont agree with him. -- ۩ Mask 20:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Meet him half way? With what, half insults and half personal assaults? I'm not interested in compromising with someone who starts off a discussion with me with "While patronisation from yourself is about as surprising as death and taxes" (see thread). I fail to see any reason to walk into the filth ridden sewer to debate with someone when they can't abide by WP:CIVIL, just to "meet them half way". I still haven't read the rest of the insulting comments he's made there and at WT:NFC towards me, nor here for that matter. Engaging with someone who is as potty mouthed as he is constitutes enabling behavior. Insulting someone isn't a means to an end. All it does is add heat. Frankly, I'm at a loss as to understand what his purpose is. If he's trying to anger me, he's failed and will always fail. To think I would place any credence in the negative, hate filled opinion of me from an editor is absurd on the face of it. If he's trying to convince me he's right in his position and I'm wrong, he's equally failed. Insulting anyone in an attempt to get them to see your view invariably fails. If he's trying to make others have a negative opinion of me, I would venture to guess he's failed yet again. Spewing as much vitriol as he has serves nothing but to highlight himself in rather negative terms. So in all of these, what is it I'm supposed to compromise on? Get half angry? Half way consider the veracity of his hate filled opinion of me? Take a survey to see how many people have been swayed into having negative opinions of me because of him? In the end, I won't give anyone a fair hearing who feels it appropriate to descend into personal insults. I choose to ignore their comment as soon as they do, and I've been doing just that with MickMacNee, and fail to see any reason to change that stance. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meet him half way by focussing on the issues he raises. At the end of the day, wikipedia is a collaborative effort with people from all over the world. People have different styles in how they go about things. It is up to you, as an editor, to find a way to collaborate with them. Its not up to just Mick to behave in a manner you find acceptable, just like its not up to you to find a way to contribute that suits him. It takes two to tango in these things. You need to ignore Mick's gruff remarks. Mick needs to not make them. This is a social project and I see two editors who need to work harder at communicating. -- ۩ Mask 20:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I will not meet him halfway on issues he raises that are couched in insults and personal assaults; I simply won't read them. I will not collaborate with someone who treats WP:CIVIL as toilet paper. I am not alone in this approach towards him; at least one other editor did exactly the same thing as I did (stopped reading as soon as the insults appeared). I am ignoring his "gruff" remarks. In fact, at this point I'm ignoring his remarks completely, gruff or no. Back to the original point; if he continues to handle people in the way he is, you've essentially said there's no alternative but to let him do it. All other avenues have been tried, and failed, so WP:CIVIL really is written on toilet paper, yes? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If at the end of the day you refuse to discuss with a fellow editor, then yes it is on toilet paper. Not because of what he's doing, but because of this attitude. Civil is not whatever someone says it is. We all have our own opinions of what is and isn't civil. Your attitude is at the top of my list because it says you dont think fellow people are worth dealing with. That you wont do things that require sacrifice. Self sacrifice is at the heart of WP:CIVIL. When we want to say something, we have to hold back because the other person might take it the wrong way. When we take something the wrong way we have to hold back because the other person probably meant it a different way. When two editors stand in seperate corners and snipe back and forth its some petty shit we dont need in this project. Be a better person and Mick feels compelled to be one too, and right now neither one of you is doing much to be an asset to the project, but at least Mick's taking my advice to stop poking you with a stick on my talk page. -- ۩ Mask 20:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If you think my attitude is bad because I refuse to engage in discussion with someone who insults me and personally assaults me, I don't think we have anything further to discuss. Thanks for your time, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem, I hope soon you'll grow beyond that attitude but in the meantime thank you for discussing things instead of heading back into battle. -- ۩ Mask 20:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the message you want to take from this incident, go ahead. As ever, just because it's your interpretation, doesn't make it a reality. You aren't at a loss to proceed, you are simply understandably unwilling to explore any venue where your behaviour may also come under scrutiny. In the same manner you ignore any and all valid criticism, labeling it all as 'personal attacks' (and jesus christ, if there was ever an editor who would be looking at a long block for making an actual personal attack, it's me) You just don't get it Hammersoft. To illustrate your level of not getting it - the admin who unilaterally banned me, and whose block was overturned leading to the arbom case, is the exact same admin who told you in that Rfc that you had got the whole Consensus can not override this issue thing wrong. And he himself was witness to all my grave "assaults" on you in that section. Odd then, to say the least, that his only contribution was not to sanction or even warn me (something he's never been reluctant to do, whether I accepted his view or not) but to reply to you, saying the same things I did. I don't see where he got much civil respect for his trouble - as is normal, you gave the same non answer that does not further the debate or even address the point, but simply restates your personal belief as fact, with no respect or even awareness that the post your replying to was just rebutting it. Just like any tendentious editor would always do. MickMacNee (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed another interaction ban between TreasuryTag and SarekOfVulcan. Since you commented in the last ban discussion that failed to gain consensus I am notifying you of this one. See - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Propose_interaction_ban_between_TreasuryTag_and_SarekOfVulcan_2. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it as public domain with explanation because, given its provenance, it's not really possible to say whether the document originated before or after 1978. The folklorist's book in which it appeared in print came out in 1984. About all we can be sure of about the anonymous author is that he or she made the document as a warning about an imagined drug threat. They then encouraged the copying and redistribution of the warning. In other words, the anonymous originator intentionally dedicated it to the public domain. None of the other public domain labels seemed to fit. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 11:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WDTN, Delta, "Decorative" and Deletionism. Chaswmsday (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}}) --Chaswmsday (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. A rather new editor has possibly been overzealous in the removal of the main image for this page, and to judge by their actions ([4]) now has a few queries on their Talk Page ([5]). I did not upload the file, and have since added several details that I feel more than validate the inclusion of the image ([6]). I've taken the liberty of reinserting the image with a note as no harm can come of it sitting there a while longer, and added still more information. Would you be able to advise as to what more it could possibly require? Thanks in advance. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello AKMask. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mask2.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. Stefan2 (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC about the use of the {{fairusereview}} tag on mainspace pages is in progress here. From 2005 until recently, this template was added to file pages when the non-free status of the file was being discussed. In May this year it was edited so that it could be added to articles. The RfC question is: "Should the template be reverted to the pre-May 2013 version, and retained only for use on file pages?"

Since you are a registered member of the Fair Use WikiProject, you might have an interest in this discussion.Tom Reedy (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:ANI sucks the life out of you, 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/Wikipedia:ANI sucks the life out of you and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:ANI sucks the life out of you 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.Forbidden User (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm a little bit confused with this license tag for when it is valid and when it is not? The only thing I understand that it is not suitable for the Commons, but when it is valid in Wikipedia? There are some photos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1948_Swallow_downwind.jpg or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chrisye_in_1977.jpg uploaded with the rationale of "Identification of singer during his early career" or "The image is used to show the Gold medal winner of the 1948 Olympic Sailing at Torbay, a subject of public interest. The significance of the picture is to help the reader grab the atmosphere of the event in a way that words alone could not convey". I'm currently heavily and almost completely reworking the Lithuania national basketball team article and the historic pictures of the awarding ceremonies would be really useful in it. Though, I'm unable to find any free pictures of some moments and consider using a few copyrighted pictures with this license tag. I already tried uploading some of such pictures in the past and all of them were deleted. Could you please explain me when this tag is valid? The documentation of it is kind of difficult to understand. Could I use, for example, these pictures:

• In EuroBasket 2003 section: http://www.fibaeurope.com/files/%7B0DFB9A41-0EAD-4461-A54C-7BC7E5407D81%7Dlarge_h.jpg or http://www.fibaeurope.com/files/%7BB7121D46-306B-4DA7-9114-2A4B83AA2702%7Dlarge_h.jpg or another one extracted from book which shows the meeting of the team (Lithuania won the competition that year and these pictures shows the Lithuania national team players after the successful final game)
• Pictures taken after the EuroBasket 2007 bronze medals game can be found there: http://www.uch.lt/2007/09/17/eurobasket.html and would improve that section greatly.
• I also consider extracting the unsuccessful Šarūnas Jasikevičius shot when the clock was running down as picture from the video recording of the 2000 Summer Olympics semi-final versus the United States national team. At some point the close-up view is shown and after it, Jasikevičius' upset is displayed (he rests one of the advertising boards and drops his head down). If his shot would have been accurate, Lithuania would have advanced into the Olympic final for the first time.
• It is also possible to extract some photos from books with the awarding ceremonies in 1992 Olympic Games and 2000 Olympic Games.
• There also is no illustration from the EuroBasket 2013 awarding ceremony where Lithuanians became the European vice-champions. Could this picture be used: http://www.sekunde.lt/media/2013/09/LT.jpg ?

-- Pofka (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome

Ten years!

... the fourth! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Space Nazis 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/Space Nazis (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. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Userakmasknew.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphaned image, no encyclopedic use

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you on behalf of Wikipedia and Star Trek fans for being a part of the Star Trek project. In case you did not see the article alert, Martok was put up for AFD today here. Lets try to avoid a repeat of Weyoun, which was deleted with one vote! Starspotter (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Mask userphoto 3.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused personal photo. Out of scope.

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]