![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
When looking for potential Commons images, I tend to batch stuff, which is why it may appear a group of images got looked at.
I dislike deletionists, and hence the refferal of an image to PUI is usally to seek consensus on how it could be included.
The other edits, as you can probably tell relate to adding information in respect of moving images over to commons or the GFDL->CC-BY-SA migration. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 23:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed your comment. What's up? -- Brangifer ( talk) 05:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I have continued to work on the list of skin-related conditions, and recently nominated it for FL status. If available, your comments would be greatly appreciated at the nomination page. Regardless, thank you again for your work on wikipedia. --- kilbad ( talk) 06:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Debridement (dental), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Debridement. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 14:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
What's your data source for this? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 15:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 15:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 15:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 15:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 15:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jezz1.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 15:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 15:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 15:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:Wise.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. BJBot ( talk) 04:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
You sure about this? Does the sentence "we hold these truths to be self evident" ring a bell? ;-) -shirulashem (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Please don't use the Misc Ref Desk to editorialize ( WP:RD/MISC#?) when you dislike the direction that a Desk management discussion is taking. I ask you to remove your question there as a courtesy to the other users and participants at that Desk. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 18:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I am really glad that you added the Article rescue squadron template to your user page. I don't know if anyone ever said welcome to the squadron, if not, WELCOME!
Please take a minute to sign your name to our list of 270+ members:
Good news, we are building our first newsletter and should sent out this weekend, keep an eye out for it!
And a warm welcome to the squadron!
Hi, DRosenbach, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!
If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! Ikip ( talk) 21:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC) |
Er, actually, I think you'll find that I was one of the users who suggested that you were canvassing.
It appeared to be a thinly veiled attempt to raise awareness to the debate. Sorry if that wasn't your intent, but the thing to remember is that even though the RefDesks are organized and presented as a discussion area, they are considered to be a reader-facing service of Wikipedia. (As opposed to discussion area like the Village Pump which is designed for editors not readers.) Reader-facing areas of Wikipedia (such as articles) should not reference internal WP things, except to warn readers that an article might have a factual problem. APL ( talk) 03:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I have the greatest respect for Steve, and you made me laugh. Thanks, DRosenbach! // BL \\ ( talk) 00:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes...I know what you're going to say -- strike two! DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 02:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Content |
Hi. I should point out that the reference desks have a poor track record with regards to questions about judaism/muhammedism/christianity - especially in terms of difference of beliefs. I'm sorry you got more responses accusing you of bad faith rather than attempts to answer the question.
In terms of gentiles and the ten commandments:
Despite similarities, christians, jews and muslims hold mutually incompatible views - thus it's impossible to create a logically consistent explanation covering all different peoples.
At the end of the day - the views of people are not always able to be transformed in to a single logically consistent viewpoint. This is the case here.
I'm not attempting to defend the christian viewpoint - it's clearly an interpretation (that wouldn't "stand up in court" so to speak) - nevertheless once people get an idea into their head, it's very difficult to remove it. 83.100.250.79 ( talk) 13:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
1. I have a permanent IP address (provided the router isn't reset) - thus you could say my handle is User:83.100.250.79 Also I actually have a user name User:happyUR - I tend not to sign in, mostly because I am too lazy to do so. I usually only use the above name when I have to, such as creating new articles etc. Also I tend to forget passwords, the above is actually my fourth account - which is another reason why I try not to get too attached to them.
2. (I'll respond to things done in the name of christianity in a separate section). There isn't an easy answer to this that satisfies all viewpoints. Christians take jesus to be an incarnation of god as a matter of faith (specifically as describe in the opening paragraph of that article), in general they don't attempt to justify this belief in any logical or scientific manner. As for the revelation of god to the jewish people on mount sinai - I am certain that christian teaching accepts this as being true, but as I mentioned before, the teachings of jesus are interpreted to extend the special relationship of god with the jewish people to now include all people.
I believe that the dogma is that although the miracle of jesus being resurrected is taken as a sign of his holyness, it is not to be interpretated as evidence of that holyness (which again is a matter of faith), and that's reinforced by the doctrine of accepting both the new and old testaments as absolute fact, rather than as a possibly inaccurate historical source.
You should be able to confirm all the above in conversation with a priest - ie that any problems with circular arguments about jesus's holyness (or otherwise) are side-stepped by assuming a priori that jesus is an incarnation of god. It is basically impossible to get a christian to move away from this a priori assumption.
b. As for the various atrocities and so on done in the name of christianity - personally I blame the roman empire which adopted christianity as a state religion, and from which all later european kingdoms derived it eg the Holy Roman Empire, the Kingdom of France, the various kingdoms in Spain. Although there were genuinely well intentioned people in the church, the organisation was strongly tied to the state, and often would have been used simply as a flag of convenience for what ever territorial conquest the heads of state had in mind. In addition, the church acted as connecting force (similar to a loose federation) amongst european states - so even though those states in general warred with each other, when a larger threat appeared to them they would unite under a common cause (christianity) to attack other powers - usually large states in the near east.
In my view this process actually has little to do with christianity, (and is a well known source of hand wringing and moral doubt amongst many modern day christians) - I would imagine that if the romans had stuck with their pantheon of greek and phoenician gods we would now be saying "how can greek culture be described as civilised when it has led to so many wars in it's name". It's also suggested that the nature of christianity as a splinter type group from a mainstream religion actually inflamed the problem - in that its monolithic nature made it far more suitable to papal decrees calling for crusades and the like than would the much more flexible and accepting polytheistic religions it replaced.
It's possible that the same brutality would have occured anyway in the absence of a christian faith. For example look at what the romans did to Carthage.
I certainly understand your point about the "Christian viewpoint that generated and that can possibly justify hundreds of years of past atrocities against..." it's worth noting that the actual teaching is general peaceful even pacifist. Most of the worst actions done in the name of christianity are due to papal bulls (also List of papal bulls) I'm sorry don't have background to fully answer that question - however I would suggest two lines of enquiry:
1. Analysis of the papacy as inheritors of the leadership of the roman empire - with individual european states representing a sort of union or federation (that often fought amongst themselves), replacing the roman provinces that preceded them.
2. Consideration of christianity as a splinter religion, and the propensity of non-mainstream (and non-native) splinter groups to be susceptible to extremism and excess, specifically being separated from it's natural jewish background (A bit like a teenage party at someone else's house where everything gets trashed - hope that analogy makes sense)
So I'm suggesting a combination of two factors - one - christiantity as a flag of convenience for political acts, and - two - it's natural susceptability to having it's true nature perverted, being an adopted religion. 83.100.250.79 ( talk) 15:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't give up on the humanties desk, there are some very good helpers there, especially for history type questions. Unfortunately the desk does have a very poor record in dealing with potentially contentious cross religion issues (when the religion is abrahamic), in my opinion some editors 'knee-jerk' into interpreting questions in the worst possible light. 83.100.250.79 ( talk) 16:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that link - I read with some amusement that Luther's change of heart towards the jews seems to have coincided with "..an epic bout of diarrhea brought on by his consumption of Kosher food". It's amazing the grudges some people will bear ;)
Hey DRosenbach, I hope you're well. I've tried to write more detail for you. I hope this helps. Just get back to me if I've not managed to explain myself properly. ~~ Dr Dec ( Talk) ~~ 23:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I see the discussion in the forum where you posted this was quiet for more than 24 hours before I posted this, so I'm putting it here too. See:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
After some thought I have to admit I don't yet have an answer. However I can tell you I primarily know about the basics of christianity due to living in a christian centred country, lessons in religious education at school etc..
Best Wishes. 83.100.250.79 ( talk) 12:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi - I didn't think my biography would be that interesting! My name's Jon, I live in Hull (UK). 83.100.250.79 ( talk) 12:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I wish it were, the avon is a lovely river, suitable for boating and picnics, the river hull is a muddy brackish tidal river, with a visibility of nil (it looks like hot chocolate naturally, without any added pollution) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.250.79 ( talk) 12:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
more I don't really do much - that is to say I haven't got a job, and don't have much luck trying to get one. In fact my life lacks a lot of 'concrete' stuff like that - which is sort of why I don't say much on my user page. You could say it is an accurate description of me in that respect ?! 83.100.250.79 ( talk) 20:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear DRosenbach, I hope you didn't take it bad my recent comment here. Sorry for the sharp form of my post, but the point is that the RefDesk is not the place for such claims of faith (of any faith). As to the claim about Revelation, the usual argument that "3M people witnessed God speak to them" , or that "it is reported in a text inspired by God", of course is not an evidence in support of the claim, but is part of the claim itself: a claim with no scientific evidence. On the other hand, from a religious point of view, one doesn't need any scientific evidence at all. Note that I've always aknowledged the right of everybody of having religious feelings. But having a faith, do not allow you to make other people aknowledge as true what you feel true. You certainly know how hideous the Chistian church has been through centuries under this respect; and of course they were convinced to be right, and that they were even following God's will: for instance, after Agostinus, they interpreted the parable of the Great Banquet (Lc 14:15-24) as God's justification to forcing people to convert. Wouldn't it be better if everybody recalled to precede any religious statement with the obvious "I personally believe, and as human being could be wrong, that &c.." (that God did this/ that he allowed me that/ that he wants us to do that/ that one must behave this way / that this is a sin, according to God's sensibility, or God's standards of decency, &c.).
Checking your preceeding posts, I see that you have a kind of mixed attitude in these topics: there is interesting doctrinal information from you, and here and there there's a kind of disposition to start religious quarrels (Jesus revelation is of lower quality than Moses's; the Ten Commandments are copyright material and gentiles should not be entitled to follow them,...). C'mon, don't you find it is a bit childish? Excuse me if you feel offended; as I told you I really do not mean to. I am sure that you will grow up in your faith and reach a mature and tolerant position, as several wonderful religious persons of your faith that I had the chance of meeting.-- pma ( talk) 09:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Two movies I found enlightening:
However, in my neighborhood street gangs are also aware of the Power of One and like high school kids that "gang" intimidate everyone.
71.100.5.63 ( talk) 21:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Dale, you can't use google hits that direct to Wikipedia or to social networking sites as any kind of notability badge. Your comment that you are "finally the first (as well as the second to tenth) Google hit for" your own name is a self-fulfilling prophecy. ~~ Dr Dec ( Talk)~~ 20:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Friendship very much appreciated. Regarding usernames, I realize that I'm not practicing what I preach, editing under my obscure, pythonesque username. The reason is that I come from a small country, and already hold a senior position, and need to protect my privacy. My real-world name is as far as I know world-wide unique. My primary reason for engaging in Wikipedia, is that it is a weird blend of worldwide anarchy and democracy that actually works (well, a benevolent dictatorship really, but as long as the dictator is benevolent...). What this project has achieved in very few years is absolutely astounding. I've followed your posts on the refdesks the last couple of months, and have noticed that you have been able to keep cool, and continue a thread when respondents have been less than courteous. Impressive. Happy editing. -- NorwegianBlue talk 23:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if you could take a look at what I am saying here, and check to see if what I am saying is correct. I think it is. Thanks. Bus stop ( talk) 02:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:FurcationInvolvement.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --
Rrburke(
talk)
02:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
This is not the place to argue the Israel-Palestine conflict. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I gave a bit more detail for you at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Shoulder_problems. -- Flyguy649 talk 02:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The article We Have a Strong Desire has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
Proposed Deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Joe407 (
talk)
07:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Refdesk barnstar
Your answer was exactly what I needed, you deserve this. ♠The Ace of Spades( talk) 02:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks for the welcome. Idaho | 51 14:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Could I bother you to check to see if this edit is completely correct? Anything additional you would add? Thank you. Bus stop ( talk) 23:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate your taking the time to evaluate this. Bus stop ( talk) 14:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I made an edit. I believe it to be correct. Could you check the information I am asserting in that edit, and tell me if it is incorrect, or not quite correct? The edit is found here. Thank you. Bus stop ( talk) 15:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
DRosenbach, I'm sorry to have tried to drag you into this. It was inconsiderate of me, because there is danger in these discussions. Danger of ostracism.
You make a good point. Or rather Rabbi Becher makes a good point. The conversations get pretty frustrating and as I say dangerous here under Wikipedia rules of engagement.
I recognize that there are no branches of Judaism. I have contradicted my own understanding of Judaism lately in discussions wherein I have referred to "the Orthodox" or "the Reform."
I totally 100% assert that "pluralism is a falsehood." I have contradicted myself on this too. I have simply made compromises in my own thinking, or at least my writing, in order to engage in dialogue in which there appears to be a large support on Wikipedia for the notion that Judaism breaks down into discrete groups. It would almost be an interesting point to make somewhere, supported by sources, that Judaism is not recognized in some quarters as consisting of subgroups reflecting levels of observance, which if we are honest about it, is that it is all about. Orthodox-Conservative-Reform-Humanistic really represents a sliding scale of observance. But I'd better not say that anywhere but on a User Talk page.
It is also an absolute quagmire to write about anything because of the constant need to back-step and sidestep to include all possible "views," and even the "views" of one "branch" subdivide into two camps, all the while uttering the absurd sort of statements as, "according to Orthodox Judaism." And then I am told that "some" Conservative Jews require that wine be kosher and other Conservative Jews do not. Why don't the Conservative subdivide into "Conservative Kosher Winos" and "Conservative Non-Kosher Winos?" (Just kidding)
I thank you for the Rabbi Becher story. That is good. I have listened to a lot of his audio recordings, available online, and he is very interesting. Bus stop ( talk) 02:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry to bother you. Wondering if you could look at this. It is being considered for deletion. Thanks. Bus stop ( talk) 17:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. What is your source that R Hershel Shachter was on the beis din for Ivanka Trump's gerus? -- Zsero ( talk) 18:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I just had a question about this article whisch you created. The text in the article seems to say his name was David rather than Dovid. Should it be moved, or is it correctly placed? Thanks, Boleyn2 ( talk) 19:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Originaly I replyed on the refernce desk but then decided that it would fit more here-so here are the posts again.
Air of superiority??Where did you get it from? Sorry DRosenbach, but you already read enough of my posts to understand that my wording and my English as a whole are influent. It's not that I meant to imply you are not aware to the TS or that I didn't notice you mention it first. My entire comment is not about you but about your arguments on Dor Yesharim. Even so, accussing me for arrogance is offensing and far-reaching.-- Gilisa ( talk) 11:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I am looking for more help at the dermatology task force, particularly with our new Bolognia push 2009!, history of dermatology, or list of dermatologists pages? Perhaps you would you be able to help us? --- kilbad ( talk) 13:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, thanks for the feedback about the above, brought a smile to my face that someone out there appreciates the work! I cut-and-pasted a few sections from the other periodontal disease wikipedia pages, in particular the signs and symptoms section, as there was no point duplicating the work, I'd rather spend the time getting Cochrane review references. There is still a way to go on the article: I think it needs some "quality" ie grotty mouth clinical photos, a BW serial radiography picture demonstrating horizontal bone loss over a period of years and the worldwide incidence, prevalence and morbidity statistics. Feel free to pitch in if you can! I want to get it up to GA or even FA status if I can: I spend my life treating perio patients so it matters to me!
Incidentally the clinical microbiology link at the end of the further reading section is the single best perio article I have ever read; I reckon that could cover most theoretical-type questions in a perio residency, it may help you out, it certainly opened my eyes to the microbiology side of life!
Wishing you happy dentistry and good health for both you and your patients, Ashley Payne ( talk) 22:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi DRosenbach, just wanted to appeal to you, after this edit, not to add links to other editors' posts. It seems clear that your edit was done in good faith, but the rationale for this rule is provided in the Don't edit others' questions or answers section of the RefDesk guidelines, specifically: "Don't add wikilinks to a question or the title; it may unduly suggest to others that the questioner was aware of the Wikipedia articles. Instead, if relevant, just include these links in your response." I hope you can see why this is important: on the RefDesk (and in Talk space), people sign their edits, so the content should be their own (saying you edited theirs does not get around this rule). You can always add content that you sign yourself. Cheers! -- Scray ( talk) 19:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Have a look at this page with a weird post/dowel drill: looks like a bad idea, no? Ashley Payne ( talk) 10:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Drosenbach, I am writing to say thank you for your opinion about this post. Special Regards,-- Ali nankali ( talk) 11:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Drosenbach, I considered the wikipedia as encyclopaedia available on the Web and we are speaking only about an existing object. All articles related to this post are peer viewed and published in respected journals but in Russian language for both endodontics, prosthodontics. The work is already done and it is finished therefore nothing to promote. Anybody can check the work with the Scientific Board of the National Medical University where the work approved by 13 professors including endodontists and prosthodontists. I appreciate your enthusiasm for improving the wikipedia as a professional; therefore, you need to do what supposed to do. And thank you for coming back to me. Special Regards, Ali-- Ali nankali ( talk) 18:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, on a lighter side than most of your discussions. I capitalized two of your changes, they are "proper" names of the festivities, so 'Strength' etc. would be upper-case. Although the article is about a secular event, I couldn't help but smile at the photo. Left it and reduced it a bit, but at some point it should be pulled by someone. Couldn't bring myself to do it now though. That's unless it catches on as a tradition. . .! lol. Good to meet you, Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:PRdentallogo.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. Skier Dude ( talk) 05:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! The video is the best thing I've watched in months. Comet Tuttle ( talk) 17:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm tired, and probably being stupid, but don't understand. -- Dweller ( talk) 14:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey D I was just reading up on Richard Feynman (i don't know how to spell it) I just wanted to tell you that I think he made an autobiography and he talks about when he worked on the bomb and how he used to pick locks. its really cool you should check it out... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idaho51 ( talk • contribs) 00:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I just looked at the other names given on the link you gave and put them into search. Simply south ( talk) 23:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The article Hot Chanie has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Sasank Sleeper (
talk)
05:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Hot Chanie, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Chanie. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Yossiea (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Getty Garden.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Oralcandi.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is The Presidents (song). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Presidents (song). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
...for the compliment. That was a nice counterpoint to that one user (Belchman or some such) who claimed I don't answer questions and just chit-chat. He's partially right, and mostly wrong. Lately, at least, I've tried to confine responses to questions I have some clue about. Anything to do with words and word origins, especially. :) ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
...for the award, DRosenbach. You were right about "controllable" as ambiguous, so I felt uneasy changing your edit. Now I am relieved you liked the change. Regards, Cinosaur ( talk) 17:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Your aggressive tone is uncalled for and undermines your comments. -- Dweller ( talk) 09:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I think I might have answered your question here, but take it with a pinch of salt. Not entirely sure if it's the correct answer you're looking for. Cheers! Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 11:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)