You may have a point that the article should be deleted. However, procedurally, it needs to go through the AfD process for two reasons. First. there was enough debate and lack of consensus about the article's disposition before to warrant further discussion. Second, procedurally, and article cannot go through proposed deletion after it has been considered for any non-speedy deletion (a previous prod or AfD or its predecessors). Accordingly, I have deleted the prod tag. —C.Fred (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked from editing because of repeated vandalism to Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks, and other deliberate attempts to disrupt Wikipedia are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. Nishkid6401:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RE: RPI
Perhaps. I know one other Wikipedia editor here who is also a physics major. If you want to regain respect from other editors I would recommend reading up on Wikipedia policy. A good place to start is the 5 pillars. In anycase, if you try any more stupid things here you WILL be blocked and you will only bring shame to yourself. Just warning you, Danski14(talk)18:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the laptops, you can buy your own. Then what you do is go somewhere online and download all the software they require. They also have minimum specifications, and it has to be a windows machine (although some students get by with macbooks running windows.) You'll probably get lots of info on it during the summer. You can also go to the website [1]. They havn't announced what laptop they are selling this year, but it should be the one of the newest Thinkpad. Their laptops are pretty good, but probably not good enough if you want to do a lot of gaming (the video card on mine is a 128 meg ATI.) Danski14(talk)16:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Um, I'm pretty sure they fix any laptops, although I'm not sure, they do it for free for the ones you get from them (they even replace if you throw drop it off a building or something, as long as it was an "accident" :) ). They probably charge something for other laptops.
3. Yeah, my suite mates play on XBox Live all the time. A great thing about RPI is there aren't any major firewalls.
Thanks for uploading Image:DSC1079.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for uploading Image:Intelescope2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for uploading Image:DSC1080.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for uploading Image:Kittdown.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for uploading Image:Intelescope1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for uploading Image:CII2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
Image copyright problem with Image:Intelescope1.jpg
Image Copyright problem
Thank you for uploading Image:Intelescope1.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
Image copyright problem with Image:Intelescope2.jpg
Image Copyright problem
Thank you for uploading Image:Intelescope2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
I just wanted to let you know that I deleted your recent edit to this article for hte following reasons:
1. It is speculative.
2. It is a speculation that has, to my knowledge, no historic prescedence.
3. If there was presecedence, there was no third party citation to support that this might happen.
4. Your edit gave the appearance of being non-NPOV; which is to say in the absence of thiurd party verification, it was strictly a personal opinion.
While I for one hope that any guilty parties are found out, Wikipedia requires supporting citations before making these claims. If you find one, please re-add this information. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. meshach (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rudy Giuliani
Please do not remove Rudy Giuliani from charts, templates or galleries and/or state that he has withdrawn because that has not yet happened. Thank you for your cooperation.--STX04:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New York
Perhaps you would like to state a source...? Hearing things on TV doesnt surfice as a reason to edit an article on Wikipedia. Happy editing! --Camaeron (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From today until January 1, 2011; the office of Lieutenant Governor of New York is vacant. However, the Temporary President of the New York state Senate assumes the powers & duties of the Lt Gov as Acting Lieutenant Governor. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
what????
No way I spent time on that article why delete it if almost everything there is true. Just find sources I've already done my work and I mean the article seems notable enough to me.
Accusing a register user who made an good faith edit as vandalism is a violation of wp policy. Please be more careful next time. Valoemtalk12:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, it is appreciated if you at least notify article creators when you tag something for AfD, because they may wish to explain their reasons for creating the article in the first place. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File source and copyright licensing problem with File:CIIstaircables.jpg
File Copyright problem
Thanks for uploading File:CIIstaircables.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Please see its talk page. In a situation like this, if you have very good refs, then we'd add a section, not delete the article. But you will understand that there has to be excellent sourcing, not just personal experience, because the company is almost certain to strongly object. Some prior disputes of this sort have lasted for years and given us enormous trouble. So this needs to be followed up properly. I'll look there at the talk p. for your response. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I am real sorry about all that happened, particularly with Figity-BOT 2 (talk·contribs). My point's this: I am upset with the Wikipedia community, and have been for some while. I cannot at this time go into why specifically I am upset, but I can tell you that some merciless reversions of my edits as well as sending some of my creations to AFD, not to mention some violations of WP:NPA has taken place. I labeled Figity-BOT 2 as a "bot" because I wanted to get some messages across that could actually last and not get taken away. By making the edit summaries indicate that it is a bot making a minor grammatical reversion, the edits would not as easily fall prey to the eyes of watching admins and other bots, and my message would get across. Things like writing in "Corrupticut" and "BYE PERVERT!" etc I knew would be controversial edits, but there is some truth to those statements, as well as many of the other contributions of that account. By the way I am surprised some Check-User was done with that, I mean how can you not initially suspect collateral damage? --Nicholas Weiner (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you agree that the edits you refer to weren't only controversial, but very much inappropriate to a website that strives to write a serious, useful, and neutral encyclopedia? I don't know what got you upset, and didn't try to find out. If you have suffered personal attacks, there are noticeboards to deal with that. Dito if you find your articles were incorrectly deleted or your changes incorrectly reverted. But if those edits of yours that were mercilessly reverted resembled the ones by Figity-BOT 2 then I can only say they were reverted correctly. Wikipedia is no place for anybodies opinionated message. I assume you've used Wikipedia content in some way during those five years you had an account here, surely you must appreciate the knowledge gathered here, and hopefully agree that we can only provide useful articles in a constructive, collaborative, and consensual climate? Amalthea21:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I only recently realized that my account was blocked for good... I'll admit I made some very poor choices that led to this, and reacted incorrectly to situations. But since several months have gone by and there have been many good-faith contributions that have come from this account I am looking into wanting to use this account again. --Nicholas Weiner (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
You have a history of extremely disruptive editing, including vandalism, deliberate dishonesty, and considerable efforts to evade scrutiny. You have sought to defend your indefensible edits. If you want to be unblocked then I suggest making it clear that you really are aware of the nature of what you did, why it was unacceptable, and how your editing from now on will be different. Vague expressions like "I made some very poor choices" are not enough: you did much more than make poor choices. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Well I can't make you unblock me but if this is so, may I request you get rid of anything I specifically created on this Encyclopedia? Not asking to go through my edits, but how about any orphaned articles or more importantly images I have posted. Would like them deleted, thanks. --Nicholas Weiner (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm afraid that is not possible. Whenever you click to submit material to Wikipedia, you agree to the following terms as displayed beneath the edit window - "By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free use images are regularly deleted, but that's because they're not allowed to be kept for copyright reasons. But if someone has submitted an image under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License or freer (eg public domain), then they have given the Wikimedia Foundation permission to retain it, and I don't believe there is precedent for deletion on request by the uploader - though someone who understands image policy better might be able to add more on this -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:valoem. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Valoem talk 14:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
