User talk:Shannon Rose

Welcome!

Hello, Shannon Rose, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Orlady (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! Ryan4314 (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kriya Yoga‎

XLinkBot can sometimes miss a link if it is reposted after being removed. See {{uw-spam1}} for the first of an increasing series of user warning templates for this type of thing. --Geniac (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shannon Rose. I also recently came upon the Hariharananda article. Aside from the Miami Herald story on his death, have you ever come across any reliable sources? The individual seem to be short on notability and reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Ism schism! Unfortunately I have not come across any reliable source other than that Miami Herald one, which could very well be nothing but paid PR. I sincerely believe that if there are ever any those sources should have already come out given the seeming desperation of a certain editor to put the man in a pedestal. The subject appears to be a non-notable lightweight in the field, no landmark achievements, no bestselling book, no substantial following like Yogananda, Ammachi, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, etc., and his only claim to fame (being a disciple of Sri Yukteswar) is not accepted by people outside his cult. I sincerely believe that an AFD is in order at this point. – Shannon Rose (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Paramahamsa Hariharananda

An article that you have been involved in editing, Paramahamsa Hariharananda, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paramahamsa Hariharananda. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Eastmain (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sankara_Saranam

Well spotted! That means it can be speedied (Db-repost, recreation of previous deletion). Except, I know nothing of the area, do you know if circumstances have changed or is there anything missing that might make him notable? Ben--Bsnowball (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MCGI

Thanks for stopping vandalism in the Eliseo Soriano article. Although you did remove what I wrote last time. Dar book (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

You might want to look at Talk:Eliseo_Soriano#"Vandalism" (News_Quotes), There's a discussion of what should be put in and how we should put it into. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 20:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kriya Yoga: Difference in Techniques

Shannon Rose: You yourself use Swami Satyeswaranada's "Kriya, Finding the True Path" when making an argument regarding Hariharananda: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paramahamsa Hariharananda. I used the same source to ascertain that the original Kriya Yoga differs from what is now taught by SRF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walterelyon (talk • contribs) 30 August 2008

Your checkuser entry

How did you come to include RainbowOfLight (talk · contribs) in your Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dar book? You didn't mention how she might be connected and she is a very-long-term vandalism fighter in good standing here. Was it a typo perhaps? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheree Silver

Hi, Shannon. The deletion of Sheree Silver was discussed at deletion review and it was decided to restore and update the article based on new sources that had been provided. You can see the discussion here. It will need to go through the articles for deletion process again, if wanted, and I have accordingly declined your request for speedy deletion. Kind regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Rose, I recently put in a Template:RFCbio_list for Sheree Silver because another editor and I are having a disagreement on inclusion of the aforementioned sources. Feel free to comment; visit User_talk:Kaiwhakahaere for the info. (P.S. - I responded to your question about Eliseo Soriano on my talk page) Spring12 (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You notified me of this AfD. My assumption is that you did this because I participated at the first AfD not so long ago, and that you have similarly informed all such editors. If you could confirm that all involved parties have been notified with a note at the present AfD discussion, I would appreciate it. Regards, - Eldereft (cont.) 00:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind - I just checked that you did indeed notify everyone who participated in the first debate. Further comment at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Sheree Silver (2nd nomination). - Eldereft (cont.) 17:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for notifying me about the Sheree Silver thing - I cannot believe I wasn't told about the DRV, even as the person directly attacked me. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a more personal note than my above comment - yeah, what SH said. The lack of discrimination in the source list presented at that discussion may have the effect of discouraging fair analysis via argumentum verbosium. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Removing Critics

Greetings Shannon Rose! From what I have seen, I think the sources are primary rather than self published. And we can always quote from primary sources. A source becomes self published when it is not backed by any organization, but I think in this case, it is backed by the organization (not sure, pls check). So If some chap from the society tells that Hariharananda was not a disciple, we can always quote him, as follows: According to so and so, "...." ; Having said all these, I am not an expert when it comes to Kriya Yoga institute and Paramahamsa Yogananda. And also inaccessibility is not a reason for a reference to be removed; for ex: several journals at sites like jstor.org are not accessible to public, but they are widely used. Also we can use references from other languages as well, the Citation templates provide the language parameter exactly for this. Cheers. --Nvineeth (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you are completely off in everything. Sanskrit Classics Publishers is Swami Satyeswarananda, it is not a registered entity and it only carries titles by him. Here I quote from Sanskrit Classics Publishers "About" page "That was the main reason Swami Satyeswarananda Vidyaratna Babaji Maharaj had to start 'The Sanskrit Classics, Publishers' for self publishing in 1984." Satyeswarananda don't belong in any organization, and he is openly against organizations Please see Satyeswarananda on Organizations). You also said that inacessibility is not a reason for a references to be removed, that is completely wrong. If a so-called reference can only be seen by one person, and that supposed source provides germain information to the article, then it should be accessible to everyone (verifiability), else we will never know the nature of that article (whether it is an ad, an opinion piece, or news reporting) or if it exists at all. Now, with regards to the French language book that I removed, the policy is quite clear (please read WP:RSUE) "Because this is the English Wikipedia, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source has been used correctly." Since no information is sourced from the French language book anyway and it is just hanging there as suggested reading for whatever reason we do not know, it is best to remove it. It is a foreign language book that makes no contribution to the article, what the hell is it doing there? Just to prove that there exists such a book? It's nonsense. – Shannon Rose (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Page

Hi Shannon, can I recommend that you redirect your userpage to your talkpage, or just even put a "." on it. Doing this will stop your name appearing as a redlink, which is usually an indicates someone is new. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! Ryan4314 (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Utter nonsense"

On this edit: As you know very well, you have not obtained consensus for removing this material.

As it happened, you seemed on the way to getting agreement for deleting some part of this. But you may have blown your chances by calling it "utter nonsense" as you prematurely removed it.

Obviously you take great offense to the presence of some of this material in the article. So wait till others agree with your reasoned argument and one of them removes it.

Or just keep on editing disruptively and be blocked again. It's your choice. -- Hoary (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But he has not obtained concensus to add those materials either. The agreement is not to touch anything within 48 hours. Why am I being reprimanded for removing the material and TallMagic is not being reprimanded for adding a new section? Since when did being unaccredited became a "controversy" and since when did Chadwick's problem became Clayton's "controversy"? It's "utter nonsense"! — Shannon Rose 02:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This is material that was already in the article when you removed it three days ago. In what sense is it a "new section"? -- Hoary (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the sense that the old material was used to create a new section "Controversy". Like when you recycle an old plastic bottle to make a new plastic bottle. The accreditation information used to have its own section, and the Chadwick information is under a different section. Now, these two have been merged to create a new section: "Controversy". When I removed it, the agreement is not to touch for 48 hours, his restoration and creation of a new section broke that agreement. You should not have condoned it, it is self-contradictory and immoral on your part. — Shannon Rose 02:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If moving large, easily recognizable chunks of text within an article is like recycling plastic bottles, then you've lost me. -- Hoary (talk) 03:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edit I made prior to the 48 hour period ending didn't add or delete anything. It just moved some text. You had argued that the information on the unaccredited status was given undue weight in part because it was in it's own section early in the article. It was an extremely small section anyway. Combining it with another section I thought would be an obvious improvment. Shannon, I made the change because I thought it was something you suggested that I could agree with and I was simply trying to improve our working relationship. My understanding of the 48 hour period was that it was referring to more substantive changes like adding or deleting material that was in disagreement not a change like what I thought that one was. TallMagic (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The agreement was "not to touch the article" and not " do not add or delete anything from the article," which you actually did, by the way, by ADDING a Controversy section. There was no Controversy section before, how can you not understand that creating one is actually ADDING something to the article? The way by which certain editors feign idiocy and use every trick in the book to rationalize their extremely-obvious POV edits just show why WP is in dire need of a new breed of editors. – Shannon Rose 19:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of warnings

Hi. I got your email about Clayton College of Natural Health and have been watching it for a few days trying to get my head round the issues. I see it as a good faith content dispute. I very strongly recommend against issuing vandalism warnings in cases such as this. Verbal's edits do not seem to fall within the definition of vandalism and you weaken your case if you are seen to be making spurious or exaggerated accusations. I see that he has done the same thing to you so I am going to leave him similar advice. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon, do not refactor comments made by other users. You may remove them, but you may not add formatting or otherwise change the meaning or force of their comments. –xeno^talk 19:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

xeno, you have already edited your comment three times but up to now you are unable to present a single policy or guideline clearly stating that I am prohibited to refactor other editors' comments on my talk page. If you cannot show me any such policy or guideline then I am left with no choice but to reject your "do not" nonsense as a worthless fragment of a Wikipedia administrator's moronic lack of knowledge of Wikipedia. – Shannon Rose 20:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Click the link that is piped to "refactor": Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable - As a rule, do not edit others' comments. Adding formatting to change the force or effect of sentences is not one of the permitted exceptions listed further down the page. –xeno^talk 20:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already done that and saw nothing that prohibits me from refactoring other editor's comments on my talk page. Now it is very clear that indeed there is no such guideline or policy, it is just your personal interpretation of "do not edit others' comments." Does "editing comments" in this context includes refactoring? The answer to this question can be found on the link to "exceptions," which you provided: "The basic rule is: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." (ref. Editing_comments). Therefore, based on this elaboration, the context of "editing" as used in the previous sentence is specifically "striking-out and deleting comments," which I never did to DanielRigal's post anyway. It also says "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning, even on your own talk page." Again, my actions are consistent in keeping with this prohibition as I never edit any of his "words," I merely bolded a portion for emphasis, it did nothing to "change its meaning." Anyway, knowing that you will insist on this nonsense to show others that you know what you're doing I will, out of pity for your struggles (imagine, three times editing a single sentence to change the links), voluntarily desist on touching DanielRigal's comment. – Shannon Rose 21:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing not to edit other people's comments. –xeno^talk 18:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Roy Eugene Davis

An article that you have been involved in editing, Roy Eugene Davis, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Eugene Davis. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. B.Wind (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hello, Shannon Rose. You have new messages at Coffee's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

i am not an admin, but I will point one in the right direction if you would like. - 4twenty42o (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Languages

Hi. This is just to let you know that references do not have to be in English. All that is required is that somebody can read them and check the accuracy. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. But who would do that and how can we be sure that his/her understanding of what has been said there is correct? We can't, you see, unless we know the language ourselves. A COI editor can purposely misinterpret or mistranslate a foreign language article to serve a particular bias. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 21:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I know. There isn't a good answer to this unless we can find somebody unbiased who speaks the language to check stuff for us. With some languages automatic translation tools can help but not here. Even so, we can't kick references out only because of the language. If we have some other good reason to be suspicious then we can. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. The relevant policy is WP:RSUE and as soon as we find an NPOV editor who is willing to translate or validate the information I will be happy to reinstate that paragraph from the Pilipino Star myself. The Pilipino Star, however, is not a high-end mainstream newspaper but a mere tabloid. According to WP:NWORG: "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market." All the other news information being used in the article at present are referenced from reputable broadsheets. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 01:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Afd on Daniel S. Razón

Hi Shannon,

First off Happy New Year to you too. I wish you happiness and success.

I'm really not sure if and what I need to do with the Afd. Other than that I'm all for its deletion.

Thanks. Conrad940 (talk) 07:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Razon

I'm really not sure what can be done there. The key is to find very good sources, and it's not clear that source is the best. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 15:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon, I've unprotected the Razon article and have pared it back to a stub. If you want to rebuild it, you're welcome, but you must add only material that is directly supported by the best sources. I tried reading them, but even after doing that I couldn't understand what was being said. You need to find sources that are very clear and above reproach. Good luck. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 10:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI BLPN

Hi, there is a thread at the BLPN regarding Eliseo_Soriano in which you have been mentioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Eliseo_Soriano

Off2riorob (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shannon. If and when you are available I would like to get the Soriano lede discussion tied up on the BLPN, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still see the same opinionated POV lede? Please explain what you m,mean that you have addressed it? Better if you comment at the BLPN thread. Off2riorob (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me the diff where you have addressed the issue? Off2riorob (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is your portrayal of a living person as being most notable as a international fugitive. Off2riorob (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Er, does your signature come with a volume control? I find the current version distracting! See Wikipedia:Signatures#Appearance and color -- John of Reading (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature is much more elegant when I view the page from my work machine! The real problem is that "Edwardian Script ITC" isn't installed by default with Windows Vista, and it was coming out in some hideous default font. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPI

Hi Shannon. I know that the articles we are currently editing have been ravaged by "sockpuppetry" and I completely understand why you have been very suspicious about newbies. Rest assured that I am not a sockpuppet of perma-blocked old users who once edited the Eliseo Soriano article. Thanks! IronBreww (chat) 07:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ang Dating Doon Afd

You might consider listing List of Bubble Gang recurring characters and sketches for Afd as well. I suggest a Redirect but I'm predicting that a undiscussed redirect would create more unnecessary than a straightforward Afd. The only refs there are from my own research and two of them are from GMA (primary sources are not enough to make an article stand alone). Those refs are already at the main article and acts as support.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Razon

Hi Shannon, I'm a little concerned about your editing of Daniel Razon. Would you mind responding to my queries about it on the talk page? Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eliseo Soriano

I don't think it's appropriate to revert so many edits that have taken place over the course of 4.5 months since you last edited this article. It looks like dozens of editors contributed to the article since you last edited it on July 1. Those edits cannot be all bad. It would be more appropriate to identify the problematic edits. —Ute in DC (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Golden West Colleges.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Golden West Colleges.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 08:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:GWCPhil.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:GWCPhil.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 08:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OTT on the AfD?

I saw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theresa M. Kelly when it appeared on the Philosophy DELSORT. I promptly removed a category with HotCat and then got a notification of the AfD on my talk page. While I appreciate that you seek wide participation for AfDs so the Wikipedia community can come to a reasoned and sensible conclusion as to whether the article should be deleted, it would be appreciated if you consider not blitzing every contributor to an article with AfD notifications, especially if their edits are only minor like mine. Anyway, what's done is done, and I'll probably vote to delete. But in the future, it might be an idea just to go a bit easier on AfD notifications. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Eugene Davis

I've started the article again from scratch and used sources that are more reliable than the previous one. For the most part, you want to try and stay away from the books that seem like they are spiritual fodder that likely aren't written by important writers. Other than news articles, try and stick to notable journals and books that are written by notable people. Books that have also been referenced to a lot in other publications would also work. Silver seren^C 07:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:CalSouthernLogo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CalSouthernLogo.png. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:AshworthLogo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AshworthLogo.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Golden West Colleges Logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Golden West Colleges Logo.jpg. 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:CalSouthernLogo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CalSouthernLogo.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:CSUlogo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CSUlogo.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2015 (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) 13:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:CalSouthernLogo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CalSouthernLogo.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Shannon Rose. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Lnnewlogo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lnnewlogo.gif. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Shannon Rose. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Shannon Rose. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:American College of Healthcare Sciences (logo).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:American College of Healthcare Sciences (logo).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) 03:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Golden West Colleges Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Golden West Colleges Logo.png. 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) 17:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Golden West Colleges

The article Golden West Colleges has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Violates notability guidelines (WP:NSCHOOL)

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]