User talk:Mikecap
Farce (cooking) has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt the subject might not be notable enough for an article. Please review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability for the relevant concerns. An example of notability guidelines can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (websites). If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so.
If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the "prod" notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod notice, the deletion process will stop, but if an editor is still not satisfied that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 23:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
A page you started (Museo Nacional de Historia Natural de Cuba) has been reviewed![edit]
Thanks for creating Museo Nacional de Historia Natural de Cuba, Mikecap!
Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Redirect for now, easily undone; no assertion of notability, no reliable sources or any real info
To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Boleyn (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
The article Rajju has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- there's no sourcing to verify any of this
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
January 2019[edit]
Hello, I'm Doniago. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Salem's Lot (1979 miniseries) have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Doniago. Do you have a better suggestion for a link that proves that a 183 minute version of the television miniseries was released as a streaming video? I do not work for Shudder nor do I have any affiliation with them. Does this page, which cites NBC's own website, count as advertising? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeless_(TV_series). Please clarify. Mikecap (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- A third-party source which discussed the miniseries or reviewed it should be sufficient, and ideally will include the runtime. DonIago (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry Doniago but your fiat ruling is hypocritical. This page for Doctor Who also directly cites links to episodes of the show at the BBC website. I don't see why a "third party" is needed when there are many examples all across Wikipedia of "first party" links that are not called out for being "advertising". Additionally, there likely is no "third party" site to link to because Shudder is the only service that has ever screened a special 183 minute version of the TV movie.
- If Shudder screening that version is notable then it should be easy enough to find a source that noted it. If not, then it's not notable enough for inclusion. Either way you do not have a consensus to include this, but are welcome to discuss it at the Talk page for the miniseries if you'd like. DonIago (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- You have so far come up with three different excuses to needlessly exclude this information, the latest being "not notable". There is an entire article about the movie already! The movie itself is notable, yet a fact about the movie is not? You are being ridiculous now. Also you refuse to acknowledge that I am correct about other articles all across Wikipedia using cite links to streaming videos on the sites that provide them. It seems that all you care about is being "right" and not about Wikipedia itself being the best source of information.
- Thank you for bringing this to the article's Talk page. I hope you will resist reinserting this information (which would constitute edit-warring) until you have a consensus in favor of it being included. DonIago (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- You have so far come up with three different excuses to needlessly exclude this information, the latest being "not notable". There is an entire article about the movie already! The movie itself is notable, yet a fact about the movie is not? You are being ridiculous now. Also you refuse to acknowledge that I am correct about other articles all across Wikipedia using cite links to streaming videos on the sites that provide them. It seems that all you care about is being "right" and not about Wikipedia itself being the best source of information.
- If Shudder screening that version is notable then it should be easy enough to find a source that noted it. If not, then it's not notable enough for inclusion. Either way you do not have a consensus to include this, but are welcome to discuss it at the Talk page for the miniseries if you'd like. DonIago (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry Doniago but your fiat ruling is hypocritical. This page for Doctor Who also directly cites links to episodes of the show at the BBC website. I don't see why a "third party" is needed when there are many examples all across Wikipedia of "first party" links that are not called out for being "advertising". Additionally, there likely is no "third party" site to link to because Shudder is the only service that has ever screened a special 183 minute version of the TV movie.
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]
 | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)