User talk:Xiaphias

Welcome to Xiaphias's talk page!

Please sign & date your entries by inserting " ~~~~" at the end.
For new topics, try to include the article name in the header.

I will respond to your comments here,
though I may notify you by placing a talkback banner on your talk page.

[start a new talk topic] [send me an e-mail]

Archives

Archive 1 Feb 2006 – Present

Hello

Just to say I like your personnal page and your contributions on WP. Thanks for what you do. MaCRoEco 23:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you!! =)

--Xiaphias 10:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Xiaphias/who

You may wish to just {{db-user}} both User talk:Xiaphias/who and User talk:Xiaphias/who link. We already have templates such as {{who}} which serve the purpose of the former, and WP:WEASEL which is a very well-accepted guideline that serves the purpose of your essay at the latter. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small frog charts

Given the available data, it appears that your ordering of the frogs is not conclusive. I've removed them from the relevant articles. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dante-

Howdy. Yeah, I didn't actually have access to the data myself-- the figures were supplied by a fellow Wikipedian. If you scroll up this talk page (or check my archive), you'll see the conversation. Anyways, he also supplied me with the references he'd used, which I'd posted on the image page. Were you unable to confirm the data in these sources, or did you find conflicting reports? Either way, let me know -- otherwise I'll assume it's safe to re-add the images.

Thanks,

--Xiaphias 10:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new parameter on Template:Infobox Christian denomination

I added the "imagewidth" parameter to {{Infobox Christian denomination}} davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks. --Xiaphias 10:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin C megadosage

I have done a substantial overhall on the shoddy citation of this article. I would appreciate some collaboration on this effort if you have time!

Regards, Djma12 ^(talk) 02:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:ICoC McKean.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:ICoC McKean.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ie discipler.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ie discipler.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Churches of Christ

Hi, Xiaphias. I'm having trouble maintaining your revisions on International Churches of Christ; an IP user keeps reverting them. I fear there aren't many people watching that page; maybe you could step in again and lend a hand? Powers ^T 12:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ie discipler.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ie discipler.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:ICoC McKean.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:ICoC McKean.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your request =

I have a feeling that that request should not be in the article namespace. Please have another look and move it to the correct place. I apologise if I am wrong. Phgao 20:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frog-size Image Removal

Howdy. A while ago you methodically removed [this image] from all the articles which used it. I'm not entirely sure why as you left no edit summaries. The image's main page has a list of references in the section titled 'references' if that was your only concern.

Anyways,in the future, you might want to give the image creator/uploader (in this case, me/me) a holler beforehand, unless the rationale is obvious. Thanks, --Xiaphias 04:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check section 21 of this page (heading "small frog charts"). ;) The contradictory information was gleaned both from the Wikipedia articles themselves as well as the cited online resources from the articles. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a discrepency, than it is probably the web sources or wikipedia articles which are inaccurate, not the graphic -- its info comes from published peer-reviewed sources. --Xiaphias 21:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no primary sources that indicate that the Brazilian Golden Frog is conclusively "smaller" than the Monte Iberia frog. Maybe you have seen some that I have not, however. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/International Churches of Christ.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 04:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Hey, I saw this got rejected. Where to go from here? I thought your version was far superior, and far less POV. Anyone dominating the talk page and article edits like Karl is clearly POV and has a conflict of interest. Is there anything that I can do to help? It looks like the article might get permanently swamped by the IPs now. It's admittedly better now than is was a while ago, but still pretty bad. If it was totally my call, I'd semi-lock it, ban Karl and copyedit/re-write the whole thing... I've never even heard of this group, but Karl is giving me a pretty bad first impression. Nswinton\^talk 04:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thanks for the positive feedback! I'd actually never heard of the group either before I stumbled across the article and decided to write a completely new version. It was very disappointing when – after days of research and writing – I found that Karl had casually deleted my work, and realized that I wouldn't be able to do anything with the article until something was done with him. The article's current state is certainly better than when I found it, but in a way that's actually less desirable: before, it was so obviously and clumsily biased that passerbys probably wouldn't by taken in by its falsehoods; but now that it has elements of cogency, Karl's manipulation isn't so overt.

I completely agree with your evaluation, and in fact that's why I filled the 'request for mediation' – I rather expected Karl wouldn't consent (though, had he done so, that would have been an equally amenable outcome). Now that he has not, I can file a 'request for arbitration' which, unlike the mediation, is binding & doesn't require his consent.

I'm going to advocate just what you've said: that Karl be barred from editing the article & that it receive permanent semi-protection. It might be a few days before I get around to writing my report to the ArbComm, but if you'd like to write a statement describing your perception of the issue or highlighting some of the more damning evidence, that'd surely be helpful; I don't know if you're familiar with the arbitration process or not (I'm certainly not), but if not you can use the reports on this page as a model.

Anyways, thanks again for the support!

--Xiaphias 09:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem, glad to see I encouraged you. I don't have the spare time to work much on Wikipedia anymore - it's kind of a hobby that I have on weekends and stuff. But this article is one of the few that I'm still really following. Glad to see you're still pursuing this!

It may be very complex to block or protect the article. While semi-protecting would block the IP users (which would be an improvement for sure!), I have a feeling that Karl et al will find other ways to work the article. Also, I don't know if you've noticed, but since you asked him to participate in the RfM, he's gone to IP editing, rather than using his user-name. Probably so if/when it goes to arbitration, he can say that he's been offline all this time and doesn't know what you're talking about. He's obviously using IP 195.38.99.103, as the last dozen edits on the talk page were under that IP, and they were telling minan to stop using personal attacks against Karl. Also, IP 85.238.71.37 and 193.6.208.65 have been using his distinct... style on the main article.

I'd be more than willing to help out with this. Let me know if there is anything that I can do - just put a message on my talk page or email me at nate.swinton@gmail.com. I'm actually just personally getting out of a group that is similar, and I was kinda used to work on their particular article, Great Commission church movement. Check out that article and the one about their founder, Jim McCotter. Very similar. I've sorta got an axe to grind with this demographic right now. So I'll admit, I'm not coming from a 100% NPOV. Nswinton\^talk 17:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

On 11 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Use of Knowledge in Society, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 12:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary, Restored paragraph, friendly notification

Your edit summary did not entirely match the edit, as can be seen here. Specifically, a cited sentence on Jayson Blair was removed, though the edit summary did not mention this. Since the sentence was cited by a RS, I assume the paragraph in question was inadvertantly deleted. If you intended to delete it, somebody else already inserted it back in. You might want to discuss it on the talk page (in a section that already discusses Jayson Blair.). Thanks. Cheers. Tally ho. Swarm Internationale (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, my fault. I just saw that you did not delete it. My most humble apologies. Swarm Internationale (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries =) --Xiaphias (talk) 10:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Labels

Your comments would be welcome on the FairTax talk regarding the label for BHI or any other organization or person that would have a political leaning. Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 20:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox for optional ads

Hello. At Wikipedia:Advertisements I saw these userboxes:

Code

Result

|{{User:Disavian/Userboxes/No Ads}}

no
ads

This user stands against advertisements on Wikipedia.

Usage

|{{User:Xiaphias/Userboxes/ProAds}}

This user supports the use of ads on Wikipedia.

Usage

Could you create a userbox for optional ads? This would be greatly appreciated. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xiaphias. I see that you have not had any user contributions since I posted my above request. So I went ahead and created a userbox myself. I posted it to Wikipedia:Advertisements. Here it is:

Code

Result

|{{User:Timeshifter/Userboxes/Optional Ads}}

This user supports opt-in ads on Wikipedia (via user preferences).

Usage

Feel free to pass it on. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies; as you surmised, I was away from Wikipedia for a while. Nice work on the userbox, though. --Xiaphias (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ICC

Searched and saw you were planning to cite Richard Ostling. Just created an article. ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ICOC

Is there any chance you could take a look at International Churches of Christ again? It seems to you did quite a good job a while ago of getting the article into a good neutral state despite individuals with strong points of view trying to do otherwise; but now one of them, User:TransylvanianKarl (also using various IP addresses), is undoing your changes. Thanks. Sally Anne (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sally! Thanks for the feedback; I've been meaning to do something about the ICoC article for a while, but haven't gotten around to it yet. TransylvanianKarl has a substantial advantage over me, in that he's obsessed with the issue whereas I don't care at all – I'd never even heard of the church before I stumbled across its Wikipedia article. My only concern was, and is, preventing the spread of false information; I tried to combat this by elucidating the comprehensive truth.

Anyways, you've inspired me to submit a request for arbitration. I've suggested that TransylfanianKarl be permanently banned from editing (only) that article, and that it be permanently semi-protected. You can read my request here. Once it goes through, I'll revive the article; shouldn't be hard without Karl's interference.

Cheers! --Xiaphias (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate it. I don't really know enough about Wikipedia to handle it myself. But if there's anything you think I can do to help, let me know. Sally Anne (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the case has been accepted by the Arbitration Committee, and they'll be reviewing it tomorrow. I'm not particularly familiar with the process myself, having never done this before, but I'm fairly confident that the outcome will be favorable. My case is self-evident; Karl's edits, I believe, speak for themselves.

But thanks for the support, and feel free to follow along here as the case progresses.

I'll keep you posted. --Xiaphias (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

congrats Xiaphias! You can massacre me. :( Can you write me, how can I delet my wiki userpage? --TransylvanianKarl (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I salute you for you efforts on this article, I would have never spent this much time dealing with people who are obviously POV. I am glad you didn't quit as I probably would have.--SMakabwe (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/International Churches of Christ

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/International Churches of Christ/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/International Churches of Christ/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Coren ^(talk) 14:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Xiaphias

Hey thanks for the message ill add the little lines, thanks for the advice!

www.myspace.com.aimthemc (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)AIMTHEMC[reply]

No problem =). If you need help with anything, feel free to ask me. --Xiaphias (talk) 05:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your awesome, Im sure ill have questions as I explore!!!

I love to read and...edit... I guess you could say Im somewhat anal-retentive. lol... just like facts to be facts!

www.myspace.com.aimthemc (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)AIMTHEMC[reply]

Hello Xiaphias

Hello sir, hi my name is camziez1296 and i am just a new person adjusting to wikipedia. I was just wondering if you could give me any information on how to right an article without it being deleted thanks message me back asapCamziez1296 (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC) CAmziez1296 2-4-08[reply]

Sure, I'll try to help you here. It can be tough to start a new article, so don't be offended when yours get deleted. Check the guide to "Your First Article", it has some important tips. Most of the major subjects probably already have articles written about them; you could try to improve them rather than write your own from scratch. Here is a short list of tips for writing "The Perfect Article". For example, I saw you started an article about fatherless families – but there already is an article about single parents.

One way you can find articles which need creation is to find 'red links'. Like in this list of viruses, all the red viruses don't have articles yet. However, I would recommend that you try editing existing articles before starting your own. Creating a new article can involve a lot of research, and it can be tough if you're not very familiar with Wikipedia yet.

If there's something you don't understand, or you have more specific questions, let me know.

--Xiaphias (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider

Please consider your actions a bit more carefully. I happen to have noted two unrelated ones by you:

tagging Sudhagad fort as nonsense was highly questionable
welcoming Argentry was also highly questionable since the guy is patently a spam-only account.

-- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletions

I think you're being a bit too hasty. Please brush up on WP:CSD before tagging. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 06:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Companies on Wikipedia

Hey, at what point do you feel companies can be included within Wikipedia? Is there a certain market cap that's needed to be considered Wiki-worthy? Just because a company has a profile within Wikipedia, does it mean they're "advertising"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucehauns (talk • contribs) 06:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability doesn't relate to the size of the company, but rather its prominence. The criteria are explained in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). --Xiaphias (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see... Are more sources needed? It seems that the company that's being disputed is a notable golf brand, most users of Wikipedia would recognize the Caddyshack brand of putters... --Brucehauns (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, just one source could prove sufficient justification for retaining the article. I did a Google search for "Caddyshack putters" and didn't find anything other than links to purchase the product. By comparison, a search for "Apple" turns up a Slashdot article on the first page and a New York Times article on the second. This seems to demonstrate its notability pretty solidly. Now that doesn't mean that a company needs to be as well-known as Apple to have a Wikipedia entry, but the same diagnostic criteria apply.

In short, if you can find a reliable source which mentions the company, that will help to indicate notability. A fleeting reference in a golf magazine might not be sufficient, but if the same magazine wrote an entire article about the company or its product, that would probably close the case.

Cheers! --Xiaphias (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watch them vandals...

they seem to hate you. Don't worry, I blocked him. Malinaccier (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, not the wittiest vandal... Thanks! --Xiaphias (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/International Churches of Christ

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. TransylvanianKarl is urged to refrain from editing International Churches of Christ and any related pages until he has fully familiarized himself with the English Wikipedia core policies. TransylvanianKarl is also urged to raise issues and suggestions on the talkpage before making potentially controversial edits to articles, including deletion of cited material and citations.

— Coren ^(talk) for the Arbitration Committee, 19:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magellan

Hello,

You could be interested by this map made by a French Wikigraphist.

Regards, DocteurCosmos (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My image

I hope my image suites your needs well. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland edits

I moved all Maryland#See also links to the List of Maryland-related topics. This provides a single location to index Maryland articles. --Buaidh (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I notice you placed a speedy delete on the Yepii Party though the article still exists on Wikipedia. I concur with your judgment. I checked its online 'reference' and its just a blog site. It looks like a fringe party when the site says: "College loan officers are terrorists. Those who practice job discrimination are terrorists. Construction workers who wolf whistle at women are terrorists. This is where the real war [on terrorism] must be fought." Not exactly very inviting. I did a google check on its name and came across this result here I would say its likely WP:FRINGE and not very notable. The fact that the author of the article has the name yepii hints at a SPAM. Regards, Artene50 (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bill guide 4.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bill guide 4.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:KrispyKremeGuy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:KrispyKremeGuy.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lighter color?

RE: File:Bill_guide_5.png

Have you considered giving the gray area a more lighter color? Inclusionist (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Autograph book

Great work on the autograph book article! I wanted to make the article longer but couldn't find enough information to expand it. I'm glad you were able to. Thanks for letting me know about the improvements you made.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old world

Dear Xiaphias

I noticed that Iceland is not highlighted on the map 'OldNewWorld v3.png' from the article Old World. Nonetheless, Iceland's first permanent settler arrived in 874, and widespread settlement by Norwegians and Celts followed in the 9th and 10th centuries. Furthermore, Iceland gave up its sovereignty to Norway in 1262 and was thus under continental European rule as soon as in the 13th century; therefore the land was well known by other Europeans in the 15th century, the distinction made in the 'Old world' article. The opposite applies to the map 'OldNewWorld_v2.png' from the article New World.

I'm sure the definition of the old and new parts of the world differs from publication to publication, but given the definition in the 'Old World' article, the current highlighting is incorrect.

Best, Tryggvia (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi, I haven't been on for a long time. I got a message from you about the Long-term effects of alcohol TWO YEArS ago! I know this is probably way too late, but I just wanted to say I think the article is great. I'm thinking of putting in my two cents for some other pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grouphug (talk • contribs) 03:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Template:TalkX

I have nominated Template:TalkX (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of International Christian Churches

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Deli nk (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just realized that you created the article as a redirect, but didn't create the article in its current form. But I'll leave this message here in case you're interested in contributing to the discussion. Deli nk (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Bill

Template:Infobox Bill has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Evil IP address (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frog chart.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Frog chart.png, 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Walmart smlb.svg

A tag has been placed on File:Walmart smlb.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cloudbound (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

João de Trasto

Hi. I included the references that I believe you were looking for on the João de Trasto page. Walrasiad (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool beans, thanks! --Xiaphias (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About Your Warning

Hello

I saw you posted this in a response to a change I made:

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Constantine XI Palaiologos. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

It is not vandalism.

I wrote the Greek king failed a war contrary to a legendary belief. I emphasize that it is a belief rather than what wikipedia reader expects to see; the reality.

See the article change log Constantine XI Palaiologos for more information.

It is not right to accuse contributers with vandalism.