|This is a Wikipedia user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at
I moved your comment about the CfD nomination of the Beatles songs in surround to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_6#Category:The_Beatles_songs_in_surround, the right location. Hope this helps. Regards, BencherliteTalk 22:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- 1 Octopus's Garden
- 2 False positive
- 3 Talkback 2
- 4 Talkback
- 5 Boilerplate content, Phil Power
- 6 2004–05 Football Conference
- 7 2009–10 Football Conference
- 8 Russian America vs. Russian Alaska
- 9 Earthquakes in Peru Category
- 10 Dezhnev article
- 11 Tectonic setting section
- 12 Arvid Adolf Etholén
- 13 DYK hook
- 14 Article on main page
- 15 DYK for 1746 Lima-Callao earthquake
- 16 Football league articles
- 17 Finnish League and Cup articles
- 18 Finland
- 19 Aspelin-Johansson
- 20 Speedy deletion nomination of Tennis at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's singles
- 21 Freddy de Laguna
- 22 Rürik Lonin
- 23 Spelling of Andreas/Anders Johan Sjögren
- 24 Ways to improve Abashokobezi 1906–2006
- 25 Kira J.
- 26 1988–89 Football Conference
- 27 Takigaks – Once Were Hunters
- 28 re:2014 World Cup
- 29 Ways to improve Southern major district of Helsinki
- 30 Nomination of Finnair flight AY 915 for deletion
- 31 Talkback notice
- 32 Baidarka
- 33 Disambiguation link notification for January 3
- 34 Nomination of Tyrannosaurus Rex: A Beginning for deletion
- 35 Speedy deletion nomination of SD Blu-ray
- 36 Disambiguation link notification for July 16
- 37 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 38 Disambiguation link notification for December 27
- 39 Disambiguation link notification for February 3
- 40 Disambiguation link notification for February 10
Your bit about the rubbery chicken was fine. The reference that "needed citing" was the following: "In the Beatles' film Let It Be, Starr is shown rehearsing the song on piano, joined by Harrison, who assists him with the "We would be, so happy you and me..." portion of the song. Starr received sole writing credit despite this. ".
To say that Starr received sole writing credit despite the fact that Harrison helped him with a portion (or portions) of the song insinuates that Harrison was denied songwriting credit, or that Ringo didn't really write as much as he was credited for - and this is speculative to say the least. The song was credited solely to Starr, and whether or not Harrison (or Lennon or McCartney or all three) helped him on the track, they let Ringo take the entire songwriting credit for this song. Doc9871 (talk) 06:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Boilerplate content, Phil Power
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
The boilerplate material you re-added in this edit (the paragraph beginning "the tables below") is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article: we do not explicitly call out our references in the article prose, but instead by using the usual footnotes system. I've raised a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Football League season articles formatting which deals with some other content / layout problems in the Football League per-season articles.
I have also undone your recreation of the Phil Power article. Our guidelines on biographies of living persons state that new articles should not be created on living people without any reliable sources attached; furthermore, our notability guidelines on footballers require standalone articles on persons notable for their footballing careers to be established as having played in a fully-professional league, and no references have been provided for that purpose. if you have any questions or comments please feel free to contact me. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for making the changes so quickly, and putting the 04/05 data back in. I could see you had been editing the page a lot and thought it was just a mistake. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I have reverted your edit to this article. I'm sure it was a lot of work, but large sections of the text and the tables were covered by the maps, and the overall effect was unreadable. I'm not sure why you felt the need to change the article so radically, and it would have been better to discuss your ideas first. As it stands, the article is in the same style as the other league articles from that season, and all the other Conference articles. You removed some very useful features that are required at various stages of the season in order to understand the league tables (such as the promotion / relegation / play-off symbols after the club's names), and the colours you used were very hard on the eyes as well, in my opinion. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- I see you've done a few of these. To my mind, this is no kind of improvement - in fact, they're hideous. Why are the maps covering the corners of the tables? Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
In response to your message, the problem is not what you have added in terms of data or information, but rather that you are making the articles unreadable for anyone with a screen width resolution of less than 1366 pixels (screen width in terms of inches is irrelevant) because of how you have laid the articles out. Whilst many modern laptops can operate at this width, the majority of desktop computers and older laptops do not (my work computer cannot go beyond 1200 or so). This means that in every article you have edited, a significant number of readers (I would guess well over 50%) cannot view the article properly because the maps and infoboxes overlap the league tables or results grids, or the tables and grids are being distorted because they are being forced to be too narrow (i.e. the club names will display over several lines, meaning that you cannot even see a single league table on the screen without havign to scroll up and down). Plus, even at the almost maximum possible width of 1366 pixels, some of the grids are distorted because they are being cramped by left-aligned maps and cannot fit everyone on single lines.
If you want to see what the problem is like, change your screen resolution to 1260 x 720 and then have a look at an article like 1933–34 Football League. You will see that the map covers part of the Third Division North table, whilst some results grids (notably Third Division South) is distorted by the adjacent map. This is a fairly good article in terms of the damage. I personally use a lower screen resolution due to poor eyesight (1170 or so) which means the results I get are even worse.
I would suggest that possible solutions to this are:
- Remove the maps and infoboxes
- Make the league tables narrower by only showing the overall records rather than home and away split - this should allow enough width for the infoboxes, but maps will still have to be removed.
- As #2, but with maps on a separate line (perhaps one section at the bottom of the article showing all four maps side by side).
- PS - I notice you have complained about my editing on another users' page and that I did not have the courtesy to inform you. This is not how Wikipedia works - you do not have to tell someone every time you change what they have written. I suggest you look again at this version of the article on a normal screen resolution and tell me whether you think it is in an acceptable state. Even at 1366 pixels, every single table is distorted and partially covered by a map. I only reverted the one I came across, but it would be appreciated if you could clear up all the other articles which are affected. Number 57 22:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, I am not going to attempt to answer all of your points - your comment was the longest comment I have ever received, and I do not have the time or the inclination to answer in detail. I appreciate that you made a lot of effort, but you must also appreciate that your changes were not at all popular. I started a discussion here and there was no support for your changes. Also, there have never, ever been any complaints about the articles as they were before.
- Firstly, these articles are to be kept simple. Wikipedia is not a repository for every statistic that is known about a subject. They are supposed to be able to be read by someone with a limited knowledge of the subject, and your changes made them far too complicated. Too many different colours make the thing very hard to follow, even with a key. Colours I object to include the bright yellow, turquoise and the darkish red - no pastels there. The tables are also too wide - home and away stats are just not necessary at this level of article. FA Trophy goals? What relevance does this have to an article about the Conference? More detailed maps are not necessary - it's not an atlas. Separate maps for London? This isn't a football stats website. Wikipedia is not designed to provide every single piece of information. Another point is that the current articles need to be updated once or twice a week - the more complicated the article, the longer this takes. Given that I generally do it myself, I would stop if I had to contend with the unwieldy format you use. My guess is that nobody else would do it either, since they don't even now on occasions when I am not able to update. It's already time-consuming. Furthermore, your statement that the C, P and R etc in the tables has no explanation is untrue - the explanation is clear to see under the table. In any case, it's fairly obvious what R means when a team is shaded pink, in the bottom three. It even says "Relegation to the League X" in the table next to the teams' record. There have never been any complaints. Your format contained no indicator to differentiate teams that have qualified for the play-offs from those who have not before the season has ended, to replace the Q.
- Your comments about the limitations of my computer and the computers of other readers are thoroughly objectionable. The attitude that only people who can afford big screens can read the articles shows a total misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is all about. All articles should be readable to everyone - if this is not the case, then articles should be simplified to enable this goal. That is why I reverted some of your articles. You must make the other articles readable to all, or they too should be reverted. Lastly, the idea that you wanted to use the V word, makes me want to use the F word. Make anything as widely known as you like, and be aware that I don't like or deal with people who make veiled threats. I was, and am, entitled to revert all of your changes if I wish, on the grounds that a large proportion of readers can't read them. When you create something on Wikipedia, you are creating something for everyone to use, not some kind of chosen few with 20" screens. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
1933–34 Football League at work, the problem is even worse - I have attached a screenshot to the left, which shows the map overlapping the table, which itself cannot be viewed on a full screen due to the infobox's presence. To respond to your other points:
- There is nothing you can do with the infobox, so in cases where it causing a problem, you will just have to remove it.
- The maps should probably go in a separate section the bottom if they are to be kept. On the 1933-34 Football League article, the Division One map is forced below the table and creates a huge amount of whitespace between the table and the results grid.
- I don't think putting any detail into the XXXX-XX in English football articles would help, as the Football League ones would still be unreadable.
- The colours in that article are just about ok - yellow for champions is a bit garish. The Football Conference articles with multiple colours are awful though.
- Looking at other articles you have edited, I think one other problem you are introducing is forcing column widths into tables. I think this should be avoided as columns will automatically adjust to being the maximum width required (unless it is wider than the screen). Number 57 08:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- 1933–34 Football League at work, the problem is even worse - I have attached a screenshot to the left, which shows the map overlapping the table, which itself cannot be viewed on a full screen due to the infobox's presence. To respond to your other points:
Russian America vs. Russian Alaska
The definition of Russian America includes Russian colonial possessions in the Americas from 1733 to 1867 that today is the U.S. state of Alaska AND settlements farther south in California and Hawaii, whereas Russian Alaska only refers to those holdings in Alaska. Russian Alaska is a part of Russian America, not the sum of all parts. I too am a published author of books and magazine articles. Jeff Smith (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Earthquakes in Peru Category
Hi Apanuggpak, I've reverted most of your additions of the 'category:Earthquakes in Peru' because it is the parent to the 'category:Megathrust earthquakes in Peru'. Mikenorton (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I'm sure that I've done it myself more than once - the hierachy of categories can only be found by clicking through them I think, there's not necessarily much logic to it (even if in this case there was some). Mikenorton (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've replied to your question on my talk page - I find that easier. Mikenorton (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. You made some changes in Semyon Dezhnev. The business about the Diomedes and the Kamchatka River (see the Fedotov story in Fedot Alekseyev Popov) is not supported by Fisher's book. Your information seems to come from Lydia Black's book which I don't have. Does she cite any scholarship that would correct Fisher? Benjamin Trovato (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Tectonic setting section
Hi Apanuggpak, I've suggested an alternative for the tectonic setting section in your sandbox, I hope that's OK. (I have your talk page on my watchlist, so it's OK to answer here) Mikenorton (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Apanuggpak, I've finished with the 1746 Lima-Callao earthquake (note that I moved the article to a title with a lower case 'e') for now. Do you have a source for the 29,000 death toll?
My suggested hooks for DYK are
- Hi Mike, I think all of them sound very matter-of-fact, but I think it is possible to present “considerations”, shall we say. With the first one, I think the problem is that many people, myself included, had never heard of the 1970 Ancash earthquake, whereas the 1960 one in Chile is often referred to, as is the 1964 Alaska one. (I’ve actually visited Chenega Bay; one third of the residents of the old Chenega were killed by the tsunami, and I’ve heard stories about it in and around Kodiak as well.) The other two would be better to work on. You could say for example, that
... that the tsunami triggered by the 1746 Lima-Callao earthquake killed so and so many people in the port city of Callao, and drove four ships in the harbour over the ruins of Callao up to nearly a mile inland??
If Khlebnikov is correct (you can never be sure of more or less casual writers from that period), his info of 22 persons surviving inside the fort’s walls would be interesting, if juxtaposed with the number of people killed by the tsunami… So you could say:
... that the tsunami triggered by the 1746 Lima-Callao earthquake killed so and so many people in the port city of Callao, with 22 persons surviving, protected by the walls of Callao’s fort, and drove four ships in the harbour over the ruins of Callao up to nearly a mile inland?
… that is, if that doesn’t get too wordy. I think the argument of human interest, whatever it would mean in this case, would be worth consideration. I think, even in this case, what it meant to the human beings involved, would be a strong argument. I could ask my geologist friend on his views (he’s not in Wikipedia), but it would not be a bad idea to consult some laymen, i.e. people who are not professionals in geology.
- OK, I'll look through your suggestions but note that there is a limit of 200 characters (including spaces and the leading ellipsis and final question mark) for the hook. I agree about the human interest, although being a scientist I tend to go for the facts, that's why it's good to have your views. We only have a few days to nominate this (it has to be in by Monday as there's a five day limit for submission), but we can suggest several hooks and even suggest others later before it's reviewed, so that's not really an issue. Mikenorton (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- As to the 1970 Ancash earthquake, I'm old enough to remember the news reports of the destruction of Yungay beneath a sea of ice-cold mud. Mikenorton (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- How about
I think that sounds fine, if we have space limitations/concerns. Warships sounds impressive. It would be quite something (something very new to me), if the DYK nomination goes thru. Please let me know if it does. I don’t necessarily look at the (English) front page every day. I just chatted with a Chinese friend of mine on Skype, and he seemed quite impressed by the article. Apanuggpak (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, seems I didn’t read all of your message, overlooked it, just noticed the last part. But anyway, I would also be old enough to remember events from 1970, but I was living in South-West Africa at the time (that was the name back then), and we were in a black hole as far as news were concerned. Some people around me read the Allgemeine Zeitung (of Windhoek, not of Frankfurt a/m), but I hardly even knew much English back then, not to speak of German. I was a geography freak back then so I would have been interested had I known about the events.
- Sorry, but that would push it over the limit (there are just 7 characters to play with here - my last attempt above has 193, as opposed to the 200 character limit, and occasionally ones close to 200 are thought too long), so I'll nominate using that hook.
- I asked above about a source for the 29,000 deaths (you probably missed it amongst all the other things) as I have been unable to find ones for more than 18,000. The 5941 that I've put in the article is clearly derived from 1141 in Lima + 5000 - 200 survivors in Callao, which makes sense. People are always exaggerating death numbers in disasters. Mikenorton (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- The nomination is in, you can watch its progress at Template:Did you know nominations/1746 Lima-Callao earthquake or at Template talk:Did you know. As joint creator you can of course respond to any comments, but I will be watching it. I still need to carry out a review of one of the other nominations, which I will do, probably tomorrow. Mikenorton (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Article on main page
Hi again Apanuggpak, this is to alert you that the 1746 Lima-Callao earthquake will appear on the main page in the next update (00:00 UTC). You should get a DYK credit on your talk page anyway, assuming the system's working OK (which it almost always is). Mikenorton (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
DYK for 1746 Lima-Callao earthquake
|On 15 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1746 Lima-Callao earthquake, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the tsunami caused by the 1746 Lima-Callao earthquake destroyed the port of Callao, killing most of its 5,000–6,000 inhabitants, and drove two warships nearly a mile inland over the ruins? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1746 Lima-Callao earthquake.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.|
Football league articles
Finnish League and Cup articles
Hi Apanuggpak. I am making contact with those Editors that take an active interest in Finnish football on English Wikipedia.
For a long time I have been happy to work on Finnish football on Wikipedia without making contact with other Finnish football enthusiasts - basically I like preparing articles / undertaking tasks that interest me and contact with others has not been important. However recently some of my work was changed by a Wikipedia Reviewer and this has led me to question what approach I should be following and indeed what approach would other Finnish football enthusiasts wish to adopt?
The current issue I face is the naming of Finnish Football League and Cup pages. I have adopted the approach that we should always be using the Finnish name in the title, for example 2007 Ykkönen and 2001 Veikkausliiga. However, I am aware that words like Mestaruussarja mean very little to most English speaking Wikipedia users. I therefore have included the English name in the title as well in recent pages, for example, 1936 Mestaruussarja – Finnish League Championship, 1938 Suomensarja – Finnish League Division 2 and 2000 Kakkonen – Finnish League Division 2. I thought that this approach might be a suitable naming convention until the Reviewer changed "2012 Suomen Cup - Finnish Cup" back to 2012 Finnish Cup.
The basic question I am asking is whether Finnish League and Cup articles should have a Finnish or English title or some form of hybrid?
I provide examples below:
I have read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and Wikipedia:Article titles but have not reached a firm conclusion yet on the best way forward in establishing a consistent approach. The issue does matter with respect to the corrections I must make to existing pages and the tens of pages yet to be prepared. It could also carry implications for some of the articles that you currently contribute to.
I think that the matter would best be addressed on a proper basis and encourage that the issue is considered on the Talk Page of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Finland task force. If the matter is of concern to you as well, please add your name to the list of participants on the main page.
You may also wish to comment on the project structure that I have prepared.
Kind regards - (Finnish Gas (Finnish Gas 14:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)).
Thanks for the message. It is good to hear from you. I was in Helsinki yesterday but did not have time to get to the museum. Last night went to matches at Riihimaki and Jokela. Will now be heading for Heinavesi. I am not familiar with this computer and will reply properly in due course. Kind regards.¨(League Octopus 09:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)).
A tag has been placed on Tennis at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's singles requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. noq (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Juvenaly of Alaska may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Freddy de Laguna
Are you sure that Rjurik is the correct spelling of his name? I think it is Finnish transcription of Russian Рюрик. Veps, like Russian and unlike Finnish, has consonant palatalization, so the correct transcription of Рюрик in Veps if we do not take Veps phonotactics into account would be R'urik, not Rjurik which would correspond to *Ръюрик. Back vowels after palatalized consonants become front vowels in Veps; palatalization in this case is not indicated, so R'urik becomes Rürik. This variant seems to be the correct spelling of Lonin's name, see . Pjotr and Fjokla neither seem to be correct spellings. Burzuchius (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Spelling of Andreas/Anders Johan Sjögren
Hello Apanuggpak! If you disagree with the spelling of an article, you should move the article to the new spelling (see Wikipedia:Moving a page), not create a new article manually and write-over the contents with a redirect, as you did for Andreas Johan Sjögren, recreating it at Anders Johan Sjögren. Now, there is no article history at the new location, and your comment on the talk page is completely incomprehensible to those who study the article history. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Ways to improve Abashokobezi 1906–2006
Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. Apanuggpak, thanks for creating Abashokobezi 1906–2006!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Reviewed. Issues found.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, but you must have misread me; I think GS221 was in the right. I'm willing to participate in onwiki discussions, but as I know nothing of the subject, I would rather not engage in a discussion so in-depth that it requires emailed discussions. Nyttend (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm not sure that this film fulfills Wikipedia's notability criteria, so I've asked for a review by the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Nordic_cinema_task_force#Notability_question the Nordic cinema task force. Feel free to contribute to the discussion there. Best wishes! --Slashme (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
re:2014 World Cup
I refuse simple because article looks worse and this is not been done before. There is absolutely no reason to center everything in a wikitable. You changed valid linebreaks (better before per html coding) and also why shorten the months and remove the things with sorting-value. To be honest I did not see how it improved article at all, to me it got worse. QED237 (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Ways to improve Southern major district of Helsinki
Hi, I'm TheMagikCow. Apanuggpak, thanks for creating Southern major district of Helsinki!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. A good list but please can there be references?
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of Finnair flight AY 915 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Finnair flight AY 915 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/Finnair flight AY 915 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. Petebutt (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Talkback notice--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Apanuggpak. I've reverted your retargeting of Baidarka for several reasons:
I've retargeted Baidarka (disambiguation) for deletion under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which disambiguates only two Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)".to 'Katharina tunicatathe' and nominated the page
Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information. Or contact me on my talk page if you have further questions. Cheers LittleWink (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mieczysław Zygfryd Słowikowski, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TVN. 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.
Nomination of Tyrannosaurus Rex: A Beginning for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tyrannosaurus Rex: A Beginning 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/Tyrannosaurus Rex: A Beginning 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. Lachlan Foley (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of SD Blu-ray
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged SD Blu-ray for deletion, because it seems to be vandalism or a hoax.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Neetlingshof Estate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Botrytis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Laura Londén, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ostrobothnia and Administration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
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.
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.