User talk:Fagstein

Welcome!

Hello, Fagstein, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

TheRingess 08:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Nice to be here.

Fagstein 08:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please choose a different name

Please consider filing a request at Wikipedia:Changing username. Many users would find your username offensive. I would have blocked you on sight, but I saw that you have been editing since December and not otherwise causing problems. If your username is successfully changed, attribution for your old edits will be transferred to your new account name. If you do not make such a request within 24 hours after your next edit, I'm afraid I must block this username indefinitely. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:04, Feb. 8, 2006

Can you point to some specific policy that indicates that the name I'm using is prohibited? I personally don't see anything offensive about my name (it is, by the way, my name), and if other people find it offensive well then I guess they're just going to have to live with it. Sorry. Fagstein 16:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw your username, I was curious, but it seems like the same kind of uber-PC misunderstanding over "niggardly". — Shadowhillway 04:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you've seen Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate usernames? What constitutes an inflammatory name is, of course, subjective, but note the sentence, "No one has a right to any particular user name." Even if it's your name. If your name was Adolf Hitler, you wouldn't be allowed to use that name, either. I'm actually against username censorship (although I don't believe for one second that your real name is Fagstein) but it might help your future work to be taken more seriously if you find something else you can live with. Kafziel 18:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the powers that be really feel that it's that inflammatory I suppose I could change it. I've just never seen anything wrong with it before, and neither has anyone else. I mean, is it because I'm Jewish? ;) Fagstein 06:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say leave him alone. Do you go around finding users called Gaylord or Dick and telling them to change their names as well? TastyCakes 18:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the kind of response, I'd expect from "TastyCakes"! Lol! :)--64.12.116.196 21:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crime against humanity

Hi there, I am really puzzled by what you wrote. There is no doubt that there never was a trial about area bombing being a crime against humanity or not. What you are asking is like finding a source for the fact that no one has ever reached the middle of the earth. It is well known and no one doubts it. The only reason why the question was brought up, as you can easily see from the debate, is that user Philip Beard Shearer does not want area bombing to be mentioned at all in spite of the many sources that can be found for the fact that many people regard it as a crime against humanity. He does not argue about his question any longer because it was not what he really intended. Get-back-world-respect 01:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is fascinating, but still doesn't get around the fact that things have to be verifiable. If it's "so obvious" according to you, why is it mentioned in the article? As for your annalogy that nobody has reached the middle of the Earth, I don't know that this is true. A good way to verify that would be finding a scientific explanation to why reaching the middle of the Earth would be impossible. Being well-known (how do you know it is well-known?) and undoubted (how do you know nobody doubts it?) isn't sufficient, though you could say it in the article if you can verify it somehow. As to the part about area bombing, that wasn't what was asked at WP:3o. If you'd like me to look into it, let me know and I'll take a glance when I have some free time. Fagstein 01:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Is this case still in need of mediation? --Fasten 12:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although it's entered a formal mediation process at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Flashplayer/UGOPlayer Encyclopedic. Fagstein 15:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think you need informal mediation and formal mediation for the same case? --Fasten 16:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. So if the formal mediation proceeds, I guess we can stop the informal process. Fagstein 17:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List Syndication 1 - Should be Speedy Deletion

I noticed you unspeedied it. He wrote on the talk page that Wikipedia isn't the place to describe new formats. Also, you should note that the author blanked the page to indicate that it should be deleted. You can AfD it but it is a waste. --Ben Houston 22:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just noticed that and re-speedied it to db-author. Fagstein 22:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3O

I must say, you're doing a wonderful job at WP:3O. It's good that somebody's taking care of this page. (There used to be quite a backlog.) — Itai (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's just one of the things on my watchlist, so I help out when I can. Fagstein 06:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have to remove things from the list when you take them, however. I was about to provide a 3o for classical liberalism, and I see you are already kneedeep. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left it on because I bailed out early. It's clearly out of my field of expertise and could still use some commentary from an expert. Fagstein 19:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rabble for deletion

Hi there. Thanks for informing me on your nomination for deltion of The Rabble. I am in the process of editing this page to bring it up to standard (including adding an infobox). The Rabble are notible in New Zealand, having a number 2 rated single on the Select chart and the Number 1 independant album (currently finding confirmation sources for these, as the only confirmation i have is in hardcopy).

Thanks for the comments. PhatePunk 06:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blanking AfD pages is an accepted practice

See this edit by Jimbo Wales. Please take the issue up with him if you disagree. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure needed to be updated, to include a mention of the blanking process. I have done so. I see that you have not contacted Jimbo yet. I urge you to do so. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Jospeh Blanchette deletion nomination

Hello Fagstein. On the Joseph Blanchette deletion nomination you said you would change your mind if any proof of his notability was posted you'd change your mind. Since then I've posted a bunch of proof yet your vote still says delete. Would you mind explaining what you think is lacking, especially in the context of the list of webcomics I posted and their notability, I'd be very thankful. Regards, Mackan 02:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed. Fagstein 04:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoover, Alabama

Hi, you stepped in to offer a 3rd opinion on the high school population edits. Locust43 is continuing to edit the page. I don't want to violate WP:3RR so I'm trying to stay out of it for awhile. Do you mind taking a look at the Talk:Hoover, Alabama page? Thanks! ClarkBHM 02:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, Excuse me but I was posting CORRECT!!!!!! READ CORRECT!!!! INformation is my last edit and revery, it was the rest of the users clark that were deleting important info about the 911 Centers. ok So you need to stop deleting verifiable info. You are not being helpful by deleting true info.. Thanks Locust43 07:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on the user's talk page. Please stop the personal attacks. Fagstein 07:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Selkirk

Thanks for taking the time to actully read the discussion Fagstein, there was a token debate about the infobox and if it should contain gaelic, but when i placed the latin name (either rightly or wrongly) into the box the page was bombarded by users demanding the gaelic name was there. i have also tried to point out that while they may have a gaelic word for this town, there still exsits no names for towns such as Jedburgh, Galashiels or Kelso,Scotland and all other Border towns (with the exception of one). you may have noticed the users who move things back to gaelic have made no attempt to show sources or to talk over things on the Talk:Selkirk page. User:retro_junkies 23:07, 29 March 2006

Gaelic Infobox

It seems to me though that User:retro_junkies has a point, very few people if any speak or understand Gaelic in these areas, so it seems quite misleading to have the Gaelic names on there town names, giving the impression that this is considered the norm.

Byerswerks 03 April 16:34 (UTC)

Your lastname.

I positively LOVE your last name. I really hope it's real. Pleased to make your acquaintance. Come join us at WP:JEW. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 06:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go back in time and tell that to my elementary school ;). Seriously though, I'm not much of a scholar in Judaism so I don't think I'd be much help to the project. Fagstein 06:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Talk:Business_Plot

Talk:Business_Plot#Thank_you_Fagstein_for_your_input . Travb 22:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions - Prison Planet, etc.

I believed that Calton was wikistalking me, but perhaps he is just very prolific and I have just run into him several times (more than two) by chance. I read through his talk page; he clearly has a pattern of "following" certain people. The reason I have not posted on his talk page is that there would be no point; it's like the old "don't feed the troll" usenet axiom. I've looked at his talk page and noticed that all he does is insult people that post there; usually labeling them as "fanatics" or "intellectually dishonest". You seem to more reasonable, (despite the odd handle name) whereas he seems to have built up a persona as a deleter. Evan1975 00:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try to assume good faith on even the most seemingly evil of editors. He's a deletionist. So am I. People get a lot of flack for that (though that's no excuse to be uncivil). Fagstein 05:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem with the same user

This is what I posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion

United States presidential election, 1900 same user, Rjensen. He is deleting several paragraphs of referenced material, stating it is POV. Last week I came here for third opinion before, on Talk:Business_Plot#Third_opinion, he simply moved his fight with me to United States presidential election, 1900, using the same tactics.Travb 23:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

east sea

hi, thanks for your comment at Talk:East Sea. would you mind commenting on the content of the disambiguation page, namely whether "east sea" should be described as a "south korea's local name" or should be treated as an english name, per citations? thanks. Appleby 04:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3O

Amigo/a....you have helped out in the past...any chance OVS is still on your watchlist? Gracias, --Rockero 04:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still on. I've reverted the page and will keep an eye on its Talk. Fagstein 05:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Fagstein Mountain, Germany--M @r ē ino 21:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3O

Hey Fagstein, you've been prolifically giving 3O's. Consider addressing Shalhevet Pass. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much of a debate on the Talk page. Is therewhere else a controversial discussion is taking place? Fagstein 22:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point is, I think the accusation of POV are frivolous, and I objected once, but he was persistent. He's already accusing me of "pro-Israel"ness before I said anything, and for me to object will be construed as a partisan thing, irrespective of my actual intention! I mean, where did he get the idea that I am "pro-Israel" - b/c I called SP's murder a terrorist attack? Is it even debatable that the murder of Israeli civilians by Palestinian with guns is called "terrorism"?! Anyway. What I needed was somebody else to come in and declare the article NPOV free, if that is indeed what it is. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I suspect he's stalking me a bit after my attempts to get his Dualabs deleted. After all, he stuck an NPOV tag on SP w/in 20 minutes! There's no way to do that unless he was tracking my contribs. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Winship AfD

Eusebeus for the past 4 days has been systematically sending articles to AfD that were deprodded by Kappa or Monicasdude. When Monicasdude caught wind he tagged every one of Eusebeus' AfD nominations as "bad faith." This has been much discussed already on the talk pages of Eusebeus (talk · contribs), Monicasdude (talk · contribs) and Kuzaar (talk · contribs). I won't bore you with my opinions, they're in there somewhere if you're interested. Thatcher131 23:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contrat nouvelle embauche/ third opinion

Hey, you recently came in and checked the above article after I asked for 3rd opinion. As the fight continues, I would be glad if you could have a look at it again!Sarreau 00:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Working Man's Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I award you this Working Man's Barnstar for taking on WP:3O with a vengence. It's an important part of the dispute resolution process that's often overlooked. Takeel 19:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sack

citations: The intro: from their myspace http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=55114748

Their discography: http://www.sacktheband.net/discography.html

The ref to lord john white: http://www.morrissey-solo.com/articles/00/11/29/0037219.shtml (originally taken from the Irish Times)

If there is any more info needed please don't hesitate to ask

ok i hope this clears up some stuff

Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources

- sack went on a european and american tour with Morrissey http://www.morrisseytour.com/feature/sack/index.shtml (from the morrissey tour website) http://www.morrissey-solo.com/article.pl?sid=05/05/22/0227212 (further tour referances, from Morrissey solo website)

Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...).

- http://sacktheband.net/archive.html - look for the piece titled The Irish Times, November 25, 2000 unfortunitly the times doesn't keep pieces that long so i cannot link to their site. its also referenced here http://www.morrissey-solo.com/articles/00/11/29/0037219.shtml a Morrissey fan site

Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.)

- They were on the Carrie 2: The rage soundtrack http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00000ID3E/002-1256335-2004022?v=glance&n=5174

Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

- are currently on the mark lemar playlist for long haul flights http://www.britishairways.com/travel/entertainhighlights/public/en_gb] and appear regularly on Irelands Phantom FM http://www.phantomfm.com/index.htm

Has been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio network.

- http://www.rte.ie/tv/othervoices/sack.html National TV exposure and have apeared on the Late Late Show (Ireland) though i've only a video to proove this no websites

i think a lot of the information you need to remove the citation is here http://www.rte.ie/tv/othervoices/sack.html this is the national radio/television channell of ireland and they recognise Sack as more then a "garage band".

The problem here is Ireland is so small its hard to find actual proof of what Sack have achieved. I'm sure I can find more things from them should you need it. Blu sonic 03:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oak Hill Elementary on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Antidemon 00:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dramapod Afd

Thanks for your comments regarding Dramapod. I was hoping you could point me in the direction of some established alternatives to the mainstream media that may be acceptable as a reliable source and is Wired_magazine an example? Daveb74 10:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Carrera

Your comments on this AFD were funny. Just thought I'd let you know. Paul 19:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

I just found the WP:3O page when I realized I needed a third opinion as a mediator. I went and saw the page, and at that point I just went wild:). And you are welcome:)Eagle talk 08:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check up on that any chance I get:)Eagle talk 08:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concordia U.

My edit to concordia's page was not biased nor inaccurate. All results have been published. You want to talk about it? manchester

It's not a question of bias or accuracy, but sourcing. Information needs to be referenced with reliable sources. Fagstein 19:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Devos

Thank you for your third opinion. I have "implemented" it. Please could you check whether this is more or less what you expected. Cheers. --Edcolins 21:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthless Review

Did you remove your vote as an unsigned user on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ruthlessreviews.com

Hello (East Sea)

I wanted to thank you for being fair, pointing out when certain users were making personal attacks, and calling out the bogus arguments when they came up. I have to admit that I am disappointed that no one really made any arguments against the merits of what I wrote. And the opposing side pretty conspicuously ignored what the Wikipedia guidelines actually say, but I can't say that I'm too surprised, Wikipedia being a creature onto itself and all. This new proposal is probably the best result I could hope for in the current environment.

I hope I'm not being too forward in asking, but I am curious to know, did I at least convince you? (Please don't answer if you don't want.) Thanks again for your comments and please let me know if I can ever help you out. Tortfeasor 08:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

would you mind taking another look at east sea? i thought we were getting somewhere with some reasonable discussions, but, well, you can see what happened. could really use some cooler heads. thanks for any help. Appleby 05:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at it, but can't find much to comment on. Is there a proposal or something on the table again? If so, can someone sum it up? Fagstein 05:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil discourse

Please note that the links are relevant, on subjects that are unlikely to be anything but redlinks. As internal links they are therefore worse than useless. If you want them in a separate section, move them there instead of replacing them with something useless. And as I have no conncection to these sites whatsoever and have no interest in promoting them, your slander of linkspam is most unwelcome. Please refrain. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are they unlikely to be anything but redlinks? Fagstein 02:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's enough to say about it worth an article. It's a webcomic host that hosts a few notable comics, and that's about it. Of course, I now see that Webcomics Nation does exist, and it proves my point. It's been around for almost a year, the last edit was in February, and it's still a stub. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AD Reversion

Panairjdde is a vandal doing that same edit on various pages throughout Wikipedia. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) to clarify the interpretation of the style guideline that mentions "Normally, AD/CE should not be used..." to give years in the Common Era prior to the year 1000 to be included as times when AD/CE should be used. There has been just too much vandalism from that one IP range for that single edit to not appear to be vandalism to me through my edits against this editor in the past few days. Ryūlóng 06:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Panairjdde was indefinitely blocked on the English Wikipedia due to his actions in this matter, and his constant use of sockpuppets and IP edits. Ryūlóng 06:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are interested in Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Interpretation.--FosterMe 20:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion on Caratacus

I understand your removal of the comments on Caratacus on the Wikipedia:Third opinion page, but the disputed is not over conflicting sources. It is about sources that one user simply lies about what they say. --Nicknack009 17:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PC is more than IBM

In your Memorex edit, you equate PC's to IBM compatible PC's, overlooking Apple and some of the early non-compatible PC's, e.g. Osborne. While it is true that IBM compatibility now dominates the market, absent IBM, back then it was not so clear and the transistion Memorex missed was the entire transition. So unless u can give me a good reason, I am going to regress yr comment.--Tom94022 17:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to "personal computers". I was doing disambiguation link repair and must not have read that one properly. Fagstein 18:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AD hominems

Which ad hominems are you referring to? I didn't recall any. If I've offended you, I'd like the chance to clarify and/or apologize. Thanks, Karwynn (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No answer? Well, I apologize anyway, for whatever it was, I didn't mean to insult you. Karwynn (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FHM lists

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FHM lists

A deletion discussion that you participated in before has arisen again. Uncle G 00:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for third party monitor

Hello, you may remember me from Talk:Business_Plot#Third_opinion you did such a splendid, fabulous, fair, and even handed job on this dispute, I was wondering if you wanted to tackle an even more heated debate. Are you up for the challege?

Article: Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America

All the relevant information is found on the page, including the recent AfD.

If you have no time to monitor this dispute, can you suggest someone else that may help? I also contacted User talk:Tyrenius about this, who helped you with Talk:Business_Plot#Third_opinion. Thank you. Travb (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion of all external links but one from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee article

Not sure why you felt the need to delete every single external link but one from this university's article. I can point out dozens upon dozens of articles on major universities that have more than just the school's official site under "external links", and I'm guessing just as many Wikipedians who agree with me that there are other links besides one that do not fall under WP:NOT.

Needless to say, I'm going to go ahead and rv your deletion of all external links (outside the school's official site), and let them be considered on a case by case basis, or until a standard begins to be enforced similar to your strict interpretation of what is "excessive links" across all university articles. -- CollegeSportsGuy 19:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a free country, but I think four links to athletics websites is a bit excessive. These websites, assuming they're official, should be tied to articles about them specifically. Otherwise any website having the smallest connection to the university would get listed there. Fagstein 06:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

The Mediation Cabal: Request for case participation

Dear Fagstein: Hello, my name is Wikizach; I'm a mediator from the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-17 Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America

I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions or queries relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards, Wiki eZach| talk 16:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved your comment

Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/strawpolls#Oppose_.28state_suggested_alternative.29 I changed my proposed name change to match yours, and moved your comment below mine. If this is a problem, please let me know.Travb (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You made a great case. I went ahead and changed my "vote" to your suggestion. ~~I just emailed you BTW.~~

Nevermind, you don't have an email address, although I would rather say this to you personally, here it goes:

Can you please consider taking out "I guess." The more stronger we appear to be in changing the title, the better chance we have of encouraging others to "vote" for our suggestion.

I agree 100% that we need a definite definition, "It really needs a defined purpose". and I have encouraged this repeatedly. This is something that we can work out in another section. Travb (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% behind my own suggestion yet. I'll be more definitive once people start commenting on its advantages/disadvantages. Fagstein 17:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you email me by clicking "E-mail this user" an email address? Thanks. Travb (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment mentioned on a user's page

Out of courteousy, I wanted to let you know that your comment was mentioned on a user's page: User_talk:Wikizach#Mediation_policy_question Travb (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Thanks for the fix to the Williams College page. By the way, is there some standard advice about how to organize a large collection of material relevant to one topic? I looked but couldn't find anything. I (and some others) plan on adding a lot of material about Williams in the near future. I was going to do this via sub-pages, but that was the wrong approach. It makes little sense to make the main article too big, but I want to have some organization to the effort. David.Kane 04:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the way it works is to add information until the article gets too big, and then break off sections into new, more specific articles with summaries and a link in the main article. Fagstein 04:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

one (word)

This article also gives the etymology of the word "one" and explains how the word got to be pronounced "one", hence it should remain. Topses 15:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appalachia, Virginia article.

I just wanted to inform you that you should not have deleted the external link, appalachiava.net, from the article: Appalachia, Virginia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachia,_Virginia, because that is the town's official website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.171.5.72 (talk • contribs) .

Your edit to Fictitious domain name

Your recent edit to Fictitious domain name (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 08:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete so many people's hard work??? Little Professor 12:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At Fictitious domain name? Because it's all unsourced trivia that isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Fagstein 18:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Username

You need to start a running tally of how many people have been tempted to make you change your username. I got the urge and then I went and saw [1] on google. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully one look at my edit history will convince any admin that I'm not here to cause trouble. Fortunately I haven't had anyone block me yet. Fagstein 05:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change your name

No offense, but your name might be of offense to others, and they'd appreciate it if you would change your username. JustN5:12 23:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been dealt with above. I'm not going to change my name just because it might offend someone somewhere. When someone's actually offended by my username, then we can talk. Fagstein 05:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Fagstein is your real name, then don't change it. Even if someone is offended. Political correctness shouldn't destroy culture. Evan1975 05:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replicon (company) tagged for speedy deletion

An article that you have been involved in editing, Replicon (company), has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ~~ AVTN ^{T C}_VPS 20:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Anna Nalick Wreck of the Day.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Anna Nalick Wreck of the Day.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:17, 31 May 2007 (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) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:CanalVie.svg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vtele.svg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Télétoon.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Télétoon.svg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:MoietCie.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MoietCie.svg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Investigation.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Investigation.svg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Vtele.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Vtele.svg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:DisneyLaChaine.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:DisneyLaChaine.svg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Vrak.svg

The file File:Vrak.svg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused corporate logo.

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Whpq (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Vrak.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Vrak.svg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]