User talk:Proud User

This user may have left Wikipedia. Proud User has not edited Wikipedia since 21 August 2017. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Proud User, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Proud User! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Worm That Turned (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Proud User! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 17:25, Tuesday, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Orphaned non-free image File:Dusty the Klepto Kitty.jpeg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Hanging in Microsoft Windows

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Hanging in Microsoft Windows. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Hang (computing). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Hang (computing) – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Cahk (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Hello, I'm Digifan23. Your recent edit to the page Sonic Underground appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Digifan23 (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your retitling of the OSx86 article

Please see Talk:OSx86 (the sections "Illegal Macintosh cloning" and "Requested move 1 September 2015"). If you have a comment, please comment there. -- Hoary (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Sonic Underground concept art.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Sonic Underground concept art.jpeg, which you've attributed to DIC Entertainment,. 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 18h39 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 18h39 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/18h39 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. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 03:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Idea borrowing

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Idea borrowing. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Patent infringement. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Patent infringement – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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 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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 10:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Sonic edits

Hi there, re: this edit at Sonic Underground, please note that we shouldn't be using flags in the infobox per WP:INFOBOXFLAG. Also, you used the wrong end date template. Just an FYI. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate reversion

Your reversion here at Sonic Underground is inappropriate for two reasons: 1) You shouldn't revert without providing a rational explanation. 2) The summary of critical response is not attributed to anyone. We do not cherrypick reviews then try to summarize those carefully selected reviews. We don't generate content, we cite content. "Mixed reviews" is a subjective phrasing that needs to be attributed to a reliable published source with a reputation for fact-checking and a clear editorial policy. This is a standard in film articles and is no different in television articles. To put it in perspective, if an editor happened to really like Sonic Underground, they might be strongly tempted to find reviews that support their POV and then summarize the critical response as "mostly positive". Wikipedia is not a forum for editors' opinions. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, while you were kind enough to provide an explanation in this reversion, you still haven't engaged in discussion on the matter, and in your most recent phrasing, I don't see the value in pointing out that an artistic work received both positive and negative reviews. That can be said about any work. Also, you misspelled negative. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Common era

I suggest that, if you consider a major change should be made to an article as you did to Common Era, you propose it first at the talk page. I agree personally with much of what you did but I suspect that the likely outcome is that it will all be reverted as too major a change to make without discussion. I suggest that you make section by section proposals, introducing them one discussion at a time. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I felt the paragraph was one-sided and unnecessary as there was already a "Rationale" section at the bottom of the page.--Proud User (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Cat

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cat you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Poxalis -- Poxalis (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poxalis was actually just getting confirmation on something, and, to my knowledge, was not actually starting a review, so I've started reviewing your Cat nomination. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 05:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Cat

The article Cat you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Cat for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pastafarianism

How is my edit and your revert based on 'NPOV'? All I did was move the explanation for the name from the lead sentence -- where it makes the sentence hard to read -- to the second sentence which is shorter and easier to read. Darx9url (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Darx9url: When it states that adherents see it as a genuine religion, adding that the name is a combination of pasta and Rastafarianism in that particular spot of the article makes it sound like you are trying to argue with it being, to some, a genuine religion. The name orgin should be explianed when it first introduces the name, to make it align with the style of other Wikipedia articles. --Proud User (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Not Com Revolution.jpeg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:SixtyEight Reasearch logo.jpeg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 29

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

Car

added a link pointing to Expressway

Flat, Alaska

added a link pointing to 2010 census

Meow

added a link pointing to Vocalization

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Musicnotes.com

Musicnotes.com is reliable for the music arrangement related details, not for genres. 115.164.91.57 (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia policy/guideline says that? --Proud User (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hamsteria listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hamsteria. Since you had some involvement with the Hamsteria redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response summaries

Hi there, though I am aware of your arguments here and here (and oddly here) the issue isn't that WP:CHERRYPICK is a policy or a content guideline. The issue is that summaries of critical response must come from reliable sources just like any opinion. Summarizing what just happens to be on the page doesn't necessarily present the actual overall attitude of critics, and constitutes original research. Obviously if I had a bias against the show, I would be predisposed to finding negative reviews that supported my bias, and then summarizing the overall response as negative. Would you want that summary to come from a potentially biased editor? Or, if someone didn't have a bias, but went out and found a neutral balance between good and bad reviews, would that mean that the overall critical response was mixed? No, it would mean that the selection of reviews is mixed. There's a significant difference there.

Even finding a single reliable voice who says "mixed" wouldn't necessarily be sufficient, because it could constitute undue weight, i.e. giving one voice the weight to describe overall critical attitude when that might not actually be the opinion shared by the majority of critics. Though MOS:TV doesn't expressly discuss how to treat critical response, there is significant overlap between WikiProject Television editing norms and WikiProject Film. MOS:FILM instructs users to provide a reference for summaries of critical response. Frankly, I don't even see why a summary is required. If critical response was mixed, then providing a balanced representation of those reviews should be sufficient. I'd probably recommend you float a query past WT:TV to get some input. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: Summaries are not considered "original research" as explained here. It states:

“

Summary is necessary to reduce the information in lengthy sources to an encyclopedic length -- even when the information being summarized comes from multiple sources. It's not necessary to find a source that summarizes the information. As long as what's in the article is an accurate, neutral summary, and each of the statements is verified by an appropriate source, then the summary is also verified by the same sources. Summary is not forbidden by any Wikipedia policy.

”

— Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not

Also, there is no WP:NPOV issue as both sides are sourced and treated equally. "Mixed" simply means "an equal or almost equal amount of both positive and negitive reviews." What could be more neutral than that, and how is that undue wieght? If the intro sentence were to be changed, it would be expanded to include what the show was acclaimed or criticized for. As for the last paragraph of your argument, MOS:FILM does not apply to Sonic Underground as it is a television series, not a film.--Proud User (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're conveniently missing some of my points, so I'll try to rephrase in the hope that it will help.

If editors have chosen a balanced selection of reviews, let's say 3 positive and 3 negative, that doesn't mean that the overall critical response was generally mixed, that means that the selected reviews on the page could be described as mixed. Those two concepts are not the same. If the article had six positive reviews and no negative reviews, could we reasonably extrapolate that all the reviews out there were positive? Of course not.

Further, how do we as editors determine whether a review is a net positive or a net negative? Gut feeling? Even the review aggregators, Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are not always in accord. What metric are we supposed to use exactly? Personal interpretation? And are we basing the summary on the quotes that were selected from those hand-selected reviews? An excerpt of an excerpt? And how many reviews did you find and count out there in the wild? A hundred? Thirty? Or just the six "equal or almost equal amount of both positive and negitive reviews"?

Summary is not forbidden by the Wikipedia community, you are correct. Summaries like "Some critics felt that the pacing of the series was slow and that the animation was choppy^[1][2][3][4]" would be fine if each of the attached references contained criticism about the pacing and the animation. It would be factual to say that our four hypothetical reviewers articulated explicitly that they didn't like the pacing or the animation. That doesn't require much interpretation and there are no conclusions to draw. By contrast, attempting to summarize "Critics generally disliked the pacing of the series and the choppy animation" would not be an appropriate summary because again, we're stating as fact a conclusion we've drawn from short excerpts of a very small sampling of reviews. These are different concepts, and WP:SYNTH speaks to conclusions drawn that are not expressly stated in any of the sources. This is why the summaries of overall critical response needs to come from reliable published sources. And I still think you should float the question past WT:TV or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television, because I think it's a good question to get the community talking about and it's high time we codify a community preference in the MOS. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: How about the current summary that is on the page? --Proud User (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Acclaimed" is still too fluffy. This review you linked to says "The songs are actually kind of catchy in a Saturday morning cartoon kind of way, but the band thing still seems a bit out of place, especially when the instruments turn into weapons." "Actually kind of catchy" ≠ "acclaimed" in my mind. This version of the wording, "Sonic Underground was praised for its catchy music, but criticized for its complex plot" I think is the right way to go. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 30 January

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

On the ITunes Radio page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cat

Hello, I have reverted your entry for now, lets discuss the matter on the articles talk page. Perhaps, we need a fork with one article for the Domesticated cat and one article for the Undomesticated cat. I look forward to working with you to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia -:) IQ125 (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was in the middle of posting my opinion on the talk page when you left me this message. --Proud User (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Cat (estimated annual readership: 3,670,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Stitches (song), have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. 123.136.107.77 (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Autofilled templates

Please take more care with the addition of autofilled templates, and do not add them en masse. You need to make sure that the template output is consistent with the article, and where it isn't take some steps to address that. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LePage image

Thanks for the clarification on the copyright. I'm not going to change it again, but the original image was much clearer than this new one which is primarily why I reverted it. The original I believe was also not cropped(which might be why the current one is not as clear) 331dot (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit on the US 2016 Presidential election page

Hello. I would like to dispute a recent edit you made on the Presidential Election article. I believe that removing Hillary Clinton from the "Active Candidates" Box, as well as the addition of a "presumptive nominee box" is not called for. The removal of Clinton from the "active candidates" box makes it appear that she is no longer campaigning, while she is still active. The addition of a "Democratic presumptive nominee" box is unfair to Senator Sanders, as he disputes the claim, and she has not reached the number of pledged delegates required for the presumption of nomination. I would appreciate it if you reverted these edits. AvRand (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Avrand6: In noticing this post I would say that Sanders can dispute whatever he wants- but reliable sources are reporting that HRC is the presumptive nominee(not the actual nominee). The Democratic Party system for choosing its nominee(which Sanders was or should have been aware of when he entered the race) is that a majority of pledged and super delegates are needed. 331dot (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Windows 7 busy cursor.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Windows 7 busy cursor.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempt to nominate userboxes for deletion

per the instructions at WP:TFD, userboxes are discussed at WP:MFD. the bot closed your nominations because they were not in template space. Frietjes (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Windows 7 busy cursor.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Windows 7 busy cursor.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Stitches music video still.jpeg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of United States vice presidential election, 2016 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article United States vice presidential election, 2016 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/United States vice presidential election, 2016 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) 22:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about new RFC

Because you have participated in a previous RFC on a closely related topic, I thought you might be interested in participating in this new RFC regarding Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference tag

Please do not try to disrupt the flow of the section and make your comment more prominent than the others by introducing reference tags. Your point was made, and I responded. If you have a response to what I said, please respond via comment as well. You are taking an off hand comment and blowing completely out of proportion. The connotation that I was going for was professionalism, which I associated/replaced with the word Presidential, something that I should have been more careful about when making my comment, and something I retract. I fully understand Wikipedia's policy of having a NPOV. Calibrador (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for AirPod

An article that you have been involved in editing—AirPod—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. –Totie (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First Individual of the United States

May I kindly suggest withdrawing your move request per WP:SNOW? Ribbet32 (talk) 07:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Please note that United States presidential election, 2016 and several related articles are under a 1RR (see the talk page for more information). Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: Quit messing with the Miszabot at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016

Stop messing around with the auto-archive settings at the subject article.

You made an edit at: [1] which deceptively changed the settings of the auto-archive bot so that the change would not be detected and you set it to such a low setting that it caused active threads to be archived. Stop it!

Setting the Miszabot to a low setting is disruptive because it prevents editors from adding comments to active threads and it causes other editors who are not aware of those threads to open duplicate new threads.

If you want to pre-maturely archive threads to make room, first transparently ask all the other participating editors and put a notice in the thread stating that you want to archive it (or collapse it with a notice), and then wait and make sure the thread is dead, then ask another editor to manually archive it. Sparkie82 (t•c) 07:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Proud User. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google Keyboard listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Google Keyboard. Since you had some involvement with the Google Keyboard redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bernie or Bust for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bernie or Bust 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/Bernie or Bust (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. -- Dane2007 ^talk 05:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cease immediately

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

I suggest you stop unilaterally inserting this horrible Photoshop of Mike Pence into the article, claiming you have some semblance of consensus to allow it to exist within the article. Calibrador (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Baxter LePage

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

Notability of gubernatorial pet not asserted. Coverage is trivial.

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. TM 22:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RM at Template talk:Overcite

I started the RM discussion at Template talk:Overcite, where I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Proud User. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cuteness in domestic cats (January 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cuteness in domestic cats and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Cuteness in domestic cats, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CNMall41 (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bing Predicts for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bing Predicts 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/Bing Predicts until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Störm (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Bias in Wikipedia" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bias in Wikipedia. Since you had some involvement with the Bias in Wikipedia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lists of television episodes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lists of television episodes 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/Lists of television episodes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Indagate (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]