User talk:LauraineCrafts

Dear LauraineCrafts,

Thanks for the comments you left on my page. Obviously I don't have any problems with the accuracy of what you say but, as I said, I do feel that there are too many details for a general history such as the 1859-1900 History, eg. the fact that the event happened during the club's second year is superfluous. I repeat my suggestion that you start a page on Mornington F.C. and transfer the details to the new page leaving the bare facts on the 1859-1900 page.

That being said, in the general scheme of things, I don't regard this as a major issue. It's up to you what you do regarding the transfer, but I think my suggestion is logical.

Regards, Albert.

Dear LauraineCrafts, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert Isaacs (talk • contribs) 01:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not played around with any of the modifications that you made to the History of Australian rules football in Victoria (1859-1900) page. However, as it is a general history, a summary of the Mornington event is really all that should be there. The full history of the drownings should be instered on a Mornington F.C. page. I note that there isn't a Mornington page yet, but you should consider starting one. Of course, the 1859-1900 History page already has a link to such a potential page.

Regards,

(Albert Isaacs).

For Dummies Books For Dummies paradox

Hello, LauraineCrafts, and thank you for your contributions!

I wanted to let you know it seems an article you worked on, For Dummies Books For Dummies paradox, is copied from another Wikipedia page, For Dummies Books For Dummies. It's fine to do this as long as you provide the following information in the edit summary:

a link to the article you copied from
the date you copied it

You can do this now by editing the page, making any minor edit to the article, and adding the above information into the edit summary.

If you're still not sure how to fix the problem, please leave a message at the help desk. It's possible that I made a mistake, so feel free to remove the tag I placed on the article.

Thanks again for helping build the free encyclopedia! MadmanBot (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of For Dummies Books For Dummies paradox

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as For Dummies Books For Dummies paradox, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

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. GILO A&E⇑ 11:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of For Dummies Books For Dummies

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as For Dummies Books For Dummies, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

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. GILO A&E⇑ 11:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your subject

It doesn't seem to have any coverage outside your article that I can see. It's an interesting concept, but I'm afraid you have made it up yourself. Wikipedia is not for publishing or promoting new ideas that haven't passed the test of notability WP:GNG with proof provided in reliable independent sources WP:RS. If you can provide proof that this is a known and widely discussed paradox (in circles above student bar level...), you are welcome to try again. You aren't one of the usual posters of this sort of material - you have a reasonable looking editing history over a few years - and if you have any queries, please feel free to ask or to appeal at WP:DRV. (I haven't lost one yet... Are you feeling lucky?) This just reminded me of an email I once received from a distribution arm of a multi-national corp. It contained the gem, 'If you haven't got internet access, please ring us on 01xxx xxxxxx.' I felt very tempted...) Peridon (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Virginia trioli gesture.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Virginia trioli gesture.jpg. 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 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]