User talk:Aaronbrick

Santa Cruz, California
"silence covered the sky...."

Oh yea? Thanks much for your help on the Santa Cruz, California with those ding bats and again thanks for the help on the Cocoanut grove disambiguous link.

Regards, Scott 03:45:07, 2005-08-27 (UTC)

Scott Burns
Hi Aaronbrick, I have a few questions/comments about this page. Scott Burns (producer) is presently a redlink; are you planning on writing this article? If so, how notable is he as compared to Scott Burns the footballer? Generally if there is a large disparity in notability, what we do is add a dablink to the top of the article with the more notable person with a link to the article of the person with less notability.

If the two people are of similar notability and a disambiguation page is preferred, then we need to clean up a bit. In particular, we need to move the page that is presently at Scott Burns to Scott Burns (footballer) (or whatever we wish to name it) in order to preserve the page history, a requirement of the GFDL. See WP:CUTPASTE. I will await a response before taking any action. Thanks! —bbatsell ¿?  00:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that as I was writing this, another user went ahead and performed this; seeing the article for the producer, I agree with the actions taken. I will add the dablink as I described above to the main Scott Burns article and I think we're good to go.  Thanks! —bbatsell  ¿?  00:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * there are more links in other articles to the producer than the footballer; and his article is sycophantic lunacy written by a team fan. i prefer the disambiguation page i made but won't put up a fight about it. Aaronbrick 00:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at Special:Whatlinkshere/Scott_Burns, I see 4 links that should go to the producer, and the rest should go to the footballer. I will go ahead and disambiguate those now.  —bbatsell  ¿?  00:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks, bbatsell, i cleaned up most of the producer's links already, and just edited a bunch of cruft from the footballer's article. getting better around here. :) Aaronbrick 00:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ideation
Any reason why you removed the tags and spam warnings from Ideation? --Ronz 02:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * hi ronz, the reason is that the text was not problematic in my eye. it's a well-known concept and doesn't make any claims that i thought needed verification at all. Aaronbrick 02:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply? What's to stop any editor from coming along, see no verification whatsoever, then erasing half of it because it's not verified? I'm reverting it, mostly to draw some attention to it in the hopes that someone will come up with some references.  Otherwise, I see it as a dictionary definition that has no place in an encyclopedia. --Ronz 03:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * your reasoning is specious. lots of articles have no citations. if you want to file for deletion, do that instead of reverting a good-faith edit. Aaronbrick 03:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd rather let it sit with the tags for a while before filing it for deletion. Yes, lots of articles have no citations - I usually mark those I find with the unreferenced tag.  I don't see any harm for having the tags.  As for reverting a good-faith edit, I suppose I could see your edit as a revert of mine, so what's the point?  We're both making good faith edits, we're both discussing out perspectives. --Ronz 03:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ronz, I'm fine with your action here and I apologize for putting up a fuss. Aaronbrick (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Image:Downtown_Santa_Cruz,_California.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Downtown_Santa_Cruz,_California.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NMajdan &bull;talk 17:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * hi nmajdan, i relicensed my photo under CC. hope this resolves the issue. Aaronbrick 20:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wally and Osborne a.k.a. On the Rocks - in fact it meets WP:WEB

 * Comment "The content is not distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." - What about Funbrain? Funbrain, rank 4,200, serializes this series. EDIT: Wikipedia article is at FunBrain.com - By the way, the comic is printed here: http://www.funbrain.com/comics/comic_ontherocks.html WhisperToMe 05:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Number 2 - Did you check to see how the title "On the Rocks" fared? I googled and I have these results: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22On+the+Rocks%22+webcomic+-wikipedia&btnG=Search - See, the title changed, so you may not get many hits with the new title. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22On+the+Rocks%22+%22Tyler+Martin%22+-wikipedia&btnG=Search gets 33,000 WhisperToMe 05:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This as a Brick
Hi. I reverted your edit, mostly. This is because the information you added didn't directly pertain to the article. They can click on the John Milton link to find out they aren't related and adding a line makes the article more awkward. I did like your addition of "AKA" but I changed it to the more standard "a.k.a." since it is more clear than "or" was. Thanks. gren グレン 20:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Reggie Rockstone, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. thadius856talk 19:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Reggie Rockstone
Hi, it's been deleted twice before, and I didn't see any assertion of nobility, but yes I encourage you to take it to DRV if you disagree. — P ilotguy push to talk  00:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

WP editability
I don't think I agree with your reasoning here. If you're writing about the editability of Wikipedia, you would say "And since the Wikipedia article about X is editable..." without that being a self-reference. You don't say "And since this Wikipedia article is editable..." - that's a self-reference. The fact that MyWikiBiz is editable is irrelevant to the article about MyWikiBiz - and even if it's not, the fact should be referred to at arm's length. Stevage 02:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * hi stevage, i must admit i don't understand the difference you are describing. please edit the policy to reflect what you think is the proper manner of "referring at arm's length". Aaronbrick 03:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

MywikiBiz
I highly recommend you read the recently posted comments on Talk:MyWikiBiz. I also recommend you read Jimbo Wales, because it explains how he is not technically the "founder" of wikipedia, but arguably the co-founder. Also, it shows the proper usage of "external links" as is clearly documented in WP:SELF. The use of "internal links" does not look good on mirrored versions of wikipedia or in any print editions that may be created. Danski14_talk_ 06:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Also it is still arguably a "stub" on the basis of length (less then 5 sentences) and because it does not yet explain the current activities of the company. Sorry to revert your edits. I recommend putting further comments on the talk page.. as this is a contentious article. Danski14_talk_ 07:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * thanks for the link. a cofounder is still a founder in my book, so i see no reason to debate that. the company has no current activities, so i don't see how the article would ever graduate from stub status. Aaronbrick 15:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well I guess you can de-stub it if you want. Like I said, it's arguable. I don't know how much more information is available about MyWikiBiz. Gregory Kohs (user:mywikibiz) claims its still around, but like you said, I don't think theres anything more to report. And also, you were right about "antiethical". I didn't mean to cause any trouble there. Danski14_talk_ 15:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I would regrettably support an RFC, yes. If that went nowhere, an ArbCom, I guess. the IAR deletions do more harm than good. - Denny 01:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks, denny. i don't want any kind of mess or muck either, but clearly there are elements who believe strongly that they needn't consult the community about this. how could he miss all those "keep" statements in the AfD discussion? anyway, i haven't been involved in any of those escalated processes before. would you suggest how we should proceed? Aaronbrick 01:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've never done one either, unfortunately. Every 'good' one I've seen has reams of evidence in links, so I guess start with that. - Denny 01:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not act as a proxy for banned users.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 21:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * in what manner could you conclude that i had done so? please don't make baseless accusations. Aaronbrick 21:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I received an e-mail listing the two same sources you added to MyWikiBiz from Gregory Kohs, as did xyzzyn. Gregory Kohs is banned. Your addition of these two sources to the article is considered acting as a proxy for Mr. Kohs.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 21:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I added the two sources of my own volition, without impetus from GK and according to my own research in google. Aaronbrick 22:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I find that extremely unlikely based on the e-mail I received from Kohs.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 22:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * He certainly has an agenda, but it is not congruent with mine. Aaronbrick 22:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Woody Long
An article that you have been involved in editing, Woody Long, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. • Gene93k 20:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Suicide Rabbit
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Suicide Rabbit, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Suicide Rabbit is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Suicide Rabbit, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 13:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Public domain
A work that's no longer protected by copyright has entered the public domain. Here is a good article at Stanford University. Quote:


 * There are four common ways that works arrive in the public domain:
 * expiration of copyright: the copyright has expired.
 * failure to renew copyright: the owner failed to follow copyright renewal rules.
 * dedication: the owner deliberately places it in the public domain.
 * no copyright protection available: copyright law does not protect this type of work.

The thing with The Urantia Book is that the jury decided that Urantia Foundation wasn't the valid copyright holder, the so-called "Conduit" was.

With the book published in 1955, the law at the time specified an automatic copyright that lasted 28 years, with the option that it could be renewed by the copyright holder. Urantia Foundation, believing they legally held the copyright, filed a renewal when it was due in 1983, and went on to attempt enforcement.

But the jury decision was that only the so-called "Conduit" (or his heirs) could legally do this. He (or they) were in fact the legal copyright holder, and since they didn't renew, there was no valid renewal -- the Urantia Foundation filing was meaningless -- and therefore copyright protection ceased in 1983. Failure to renew copyright = "in the public domain". The article was correct saying the book is in the public domain.

From the court decision referenced in the article, this is the legal argument that the courts were trying to resolve:


 * "Thus, if The Urantia Book is a unified work, copyright transferred by operation of law to the Conduit's heirs in 1983, and they are the only persons who could have renewed or assigned it to Urantia Foundation. Because they did not renew the copyright, if The Urantia Book is a unified work, it now resides in the public domain."

And that is what the courts determined, it wasn't a composite work, it wasn't commissioned. It was a unified work -- so, it's in the public domain. Hope that makes the issue clearer, I know it's not the most straight-forward of legal situations. Wazronk (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Wazronk! You assert that the courts determined the work was unified, but where is this cited? I don't see any such conclusion in the case text. Thanks! Aaronbrick (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind, this wasn't to come to a judgment about whether there was copyright or not copyright of the book when it was published. It was to determine whether there was a valid renewal of the copyright in 1983.


 * Here is the original Oklahoma judgment :
 * "This action came on for trial before the Court and a jury, Honorable Lee R West, Senior District Judge, presiding, certain issues having been resolved by compromise and settlement, and the remaining issues having been duly tried and the jury having duly rendered its verdict, the Court ORDERS that JUDGMENT IS ENTERED 1) in favor of Michael Foundation on its claim of copyright invalidity against Urantia Foundation, 2) in favor of Michael Foundation on Urantia Foundation's counter-claim of copyright infringement and 3) in favor of Harry McMullan, III on Urantia Foundation's third-party claim of contributory copyright infringement. The Court further ORDERS and ADJUDGES that the United States registered copyright renewal (No. RE-384) held by the Urantia Foundation on The Urantia Book is invalid and unenforceable and that Michael Foundation and Harry McMullan, III be awarded their costs with respect to the copyright portion of this suit."


 * There were only two sides to this part of the legal argumentation -- either it should be considered a regular, unified work as most books are or a composite work as UF tried to claim (setting aside the "commissioned work" part of the case, since it's separate):
 * "Urantia Foundation advances four arguments in support of its contention that The Urantia Book is a composite work as a matter of law: "....
 * "Michael Foundation argues that the evidence indicates that The Urantia Book is, in fact, a unified literary work by a single author and not a compilation of works selected and arranged by a third party."


 * The stakes were as I already pointed out with a partial quote, here is the more complete paragraph from the appeals court findings: "Under the governing statute, if The Urantia Book is classified as a unified work by a single author, then Urantia Foundation cannot currently hold a valid renewal copyright because renewal rights in such works were not assignable until they vested, and the Conduit was dead by 1983. Thus, if The Urantia Book is a unified work, copyright transferred by operation of law to the Conduit's heirs in 1983, and they are the only persons who could have renewed or assigned it to Urantia Foundation. Because they did not renew the copyright, if The Urantia Book is a unified work, it now resides in the public domain."


 * The copyright renewal was held to be invalid and unenforceable, not the standard copyright protection of 28 years beginning in 1955 when it was published.


 * Since the renewal was invalid, the copyright protection ended 1983. There isn't a state of being "uncopyrighted" that a work goes into when its copyright protection ends, by law a work just falls into the public domain. All the best. Wazronk 21:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello again. Thanks for citing the Oklahoma case, which I didn't find earlier. I made another edit and didn't touch the words "public domain". I appreciate your explanations! Aaronbrick 01:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, happy to help. Thanks for the contribution to the article. Wazronk 03:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Donnez
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Raymond Donnez, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Raymond Donnez. BlueValour (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Odd Fellows
"these links are unhelpful" - I don't agree. They are were there precisely because they  are were helpful - they pointed to a section that gave some information about those Lodges. (The relevant sections had bold entries before someone came along and "improved" the article.) Pdfpdf (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * disambiguation is for multiple articles covering topics with the same name. a bunch of (identical) internal links to the same article mean to me that there is no disambiguation needed. Aaronbrick (talk) 04:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing my point. However, I don't plan to change anything at the moment. Toodle-oo. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of State of Grace (band)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article State of Grace (band), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Fails WP:MUSIC

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Jfire (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pre-code
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Pre-code, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * I redirected all hyperlinks which referred to this page to the Pre-Code Hollywood page.Ineuw (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Ineuw (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Aaronbrick! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Rick Boston -
 * 2) Maurice Starr -
 * 3) Kush Arora -

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Veteran Automobile Präsident
You have recently edited Präsident, where you have deleted word "VETERAN automobile" while adding, that "veteran" is a person. Since I am not a native English speaker, while you are, I will not change it back, but I would like to bring to your attention definition of veteran in dictionary veteran, especially Adj.	1.	veteran - rendered competent through trial and experience; "a seasoned traveler"; "veteran steadiness"; "a veteran officer" seasoned experienced, experient - having experience; having knowledge or skill from observation or participation I would also like to bring to your attention this template:

Best regards Cimmerian praetor (talk) 08:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Gurgel photo
Hello Aaronbrick - I notice that you haven't been active in a while, but perhaps you could nonetheless assist me in providing a statement saying that you took this photo:. All you would have to do is just write Own work in the "Source" section of the file, which will protect it from possible deletion. Thanks,  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Marshall Berle


The article Marshall Berle has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unsourced BLP

While all constructive 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 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 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. JBH (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomenclaturebrowser
Hi. I am member of the Bot Approval Group. Am I right to believe that your bot, Nomenclaturebrowser is nowadays inactive because of all interwiki links moved to Wikidata? If this is that so, I guess you have no problem if the bot flag is removed? We tend to remove bot flags from inactive accounts for security reasons. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * hello, you're right, though it wasn't for that reason. i'll get a new account wherever it takes if this project is ever reactivated. thanks for the notice. Aaronbrick (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Jobs and Wozniak listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jobs and Wozniak. Since you had some involvement with the Jobs and Wozniak redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 07:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Signifying monkey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King Monkey. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Your inactive bot(s)
Hello Aaronbrick. We currently show that you are the operator on file for at least one  account that appears to be inactive. Please see the discussion and list of bots here: Bot owners' noticeboard. If you are no longer operating your bot, no action is required - your bot will be marked as retired and have the bot flag removed. Should your bot be retired and you wish to revive it in the future, please request bot authorization at WP:BRFA. If you are still in control of your bot (including knowing its hopefully strong password) and wish to maintain the bot flag, please sign the table on the linked discussion. Thank you, — xaosflux  Talk 14:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Suicide Rabbit


The article Suicide Rabbit has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Doesn't pass WP:GNG in my opinion. Ghits turns up the same WaPo article this article refers to (one good source), a UPI article that is effectively a report on the WaPo article (see here), a Daily Mail article (not WP:RS) and a trivial one-sentence mention in a book about Asian comics. A flash in the pan in the mid-2000s but no sustained notability.

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 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 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Alcohol enema for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alcohol enema is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Alcohol enema until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Deacon Vorbis (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of MyWikiBiz for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MyWikiBiz is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/MyWikiBiz& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anne Pellowski, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Folk tales. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)