User talk:Chriscf

New messages to the bottom. Some skins have a section edit button.

Image Tagging Image:LibertyStadium.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:LibertyStadium.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. cohesion&#9733; talk 00:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Georgia Move
As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country). Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 04:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

tax queries
i have recently started workin as a self employed shopfitter and was just wonderin if you help me with some tax related questions:-

1) How much are you allowed to earn before you pay tax? 2) I have read that i only pay 10% tax until i have earned £4000 then anything after that is at 22%,is that correct? 3) when do i have to submit my tax returns?

if you could help me with these queries or any other information i would be most grateful

yours gratefully Mr N Worthington

Echovoice
well i understand, but how can you discriminate against small organizations, just because we are not as big as a Microsoft you guys want to kick us out, i wrote a legitimate article. that's why i use Google when i want to find something, because they don't discriminate like wikipedia does, i am very dissatisfied with the way things were handled

Speedy deletion
Hi there; when you place a speedy deletion tag on an article, it is better if you place it above the existing text, not below it. This allows other editors to see that the tag is in place.--Anthony.bradbury 00:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually no, it doesn't always. Putting tags at the top is Wiki policy, it's not just me. --Anthony.bradbury 00:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Friend, I have no intention of criticising, so please do not take offence. We are both on the same side in our attempts to keep our encyclopedia clean. I am only passing on policy as it has been passed to me.--Anthony.bradbury 00:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Echovoice
we are not only known and recognized throughout the entire gaming community in Arizona but across the United States, we have partnerships with some of the top leading technology corporations in the world, we have developed and designed freeware that has received large numbers of downloads and recognition throughout the world and we were acknowledged in September's issue of PC magazine. Please explain to me why we are not considered "notable"  Fairchild

well i dont know if you actually read the article but it clearly used all the references i mentioned above, it also included several external links, i asked for help writing an "accepted" article and all i got was a deletion Mike

haha, thanks for the help! Mike

NVC articles - naming conventions
Hi. I noticed that you changed the name of one of the NVC community articles - I think it would be useful to establish a consensus view on how these articles should be named, and then use it for all communities. Would you be happy to take part? I suggest the main NVC page is probably the best place to hold the discussion. Cheers SP-KP 17:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Can you point me at the relevant sections within these policies as they're quite large pages. Thanks. SP-KP 17:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks - that seems like sensible reasoning - I'll follow the same approach for future NVC pages I create. Did you plan to rename the other existing ones, for consistency? SP-KP 18:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

S1 & M20 don't look right; other than that it looks like you've sorted them out - thanks. SP-KP 19:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Brian Role
Restored to User:Chriscf/Brian Role. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD evaluation
Wow. It's complicated but I give you points for being objective. May I suggest handicap points for newbies who are still learning the ropes? :)Dgray xplane 02:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

orkut
Hi,

Just came by to note that I reverted your edit to Orkut Büyükkökten. Though a proper noun, 'orkut' (the website) is written as 'orkut', and not 'Orkut'. This is similar to iPod, which isn't written as 'IPod' or 'Ipod' even though it is a proper noun. Regards, — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Etiquette
The etiquette are the official rules of the underground, it does speed up your journey becuase if you just pushed on noone will be able to move thus slowing the journey down. Unisouth 09:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What a strange law. I guess people could trip up and break there neck as well. Unisouth 10:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD
Do not change a AfD closure I closed it as Keep pending rewrite. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 16:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Beta's revert is also improper and he is being unreasonably stubborn. Still a DRV may make more sense than a revert war. (I'm a bit busy right now, but I would strongly support any DRV attempt). JoshuaZ 17:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Nebor
I think you are really Nebor from the Planet Vaxia. -Husnock 18:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hotel Transylvania
I saw your prod, and I can't really see that the article is worth keeping. Thanks. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

2009 Lusophony Games
Hello. I happen to notice you cleared this page's content making it a redirect to the sport event article - Lusophony Games. Could you explain me why? Thanks. Parutakupiu  talk 02:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed it answered. Thank you for the explanation. I'll apply the same thing to another similar article. Parutakupiu  talk 03:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Categories are not eligible for speedy deletion with this tag until they have been empty for four days. You can't remove a category's tag from every article that uses it and tag it for speedy deletion on the same day using this tag. Jecowa 07:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

2014/2018 Fifa World Cup
I apologise if you felt I was uncivil. It was not personal. Your edit will not be reverted again by me, (though I expect somebody else will). Could you please read the guidelines for deletion. Deletion policy thank you. Blanking is considered vandalism as per Wikipedia policy which you quote Pal X 09:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * PS


 * Hi, I just have to say that I really disagree with your recent blanking and redirecting of several future sporting events. First, as a matter of principle, I think you should have tagged the articles in question and linked to some centralized discussion, or discuss each case in the article's talk page, before making such big changes. Second, I disagree on your reading of crystal-balling. I agree that when the event is too far out in the future to have any good information it doesn't deserve an article, but in some cases there is reliable and verifiable information at hand which is of interest to readers. To say that an event is "scheduled" or that a country/city has announced it will bid to host the event is not speculation. They are completely verifiable facts. I agree though that there is too much speculation around, for instance saying that Venezuela is a potential host candidate for the 2014 WC just because they'll have several new stadiums soon. But this means that the articles need to be improved, not completely blanked. Also, I read your comment in an AfD for some distant Olympics that you thought that the 2008 US presidential election deserves an article at this point, despite not knowing who's actually going to run, since it is the next one. If this is the case, I think it's appropriate for the 2014 WC to have an article, since it is also the immediate next edition for which a formal bidding process will start, and there is plenty of information about it. 2018 and beyond can wait, I would certainly agree with that. Finally, you even blanked the 2009 Confederations Cup, for which we already know the host country and another participating team, so you'll surely agree that it does merit an article at this point. I'm not going to go through all the articles you changed, but it's likely that you were too quick in blanking other ones. Anyway, I hope you reconsider the changes you've made, I won't revert them myself. Thanks, regards, --Gabbec 15:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring
Can you please be more careful to stay clear from anything that could be perceived as a violation of WP:3RR? There are better ways to settle disputes (WP:3O is one) and you lose the moral high ground that way. Grouse 11:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Don't be the second one to be blocked because of that page tonight, you are one revert away. Viridae Talk 11:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know you'd invented a new policy... :@
Why do you delete perfectly reasonable articles. Future spoting events do happen, so it is not made up. it is referenced and people may need to have some information on future sporting events, to look at the competition or get tickets for it! why do you do this. In case you hadn't figured out the new policy you seem to have invented, its lets delete reasonable articles and annoy people who need that article for future reference. i am pretty annoyed. Signed: Soopahoops77

Re: 2014 FIFA World Cup
Well, he does say on that talk page that "messages will be removed." (Which is an idiotic way to behave, but at least shouldn't make you surprised that it happens.)

Also, you weren't exactly "engaging in conversation" about what should happen to it...you were saying "STOP! You are wrong. And because of you being wrong, I'll treat you as a vandal by using generic talk page messages, too."

While I'm at it, re your last comment on Talk:2018_FIFA_World_Cup. and I will probably put the redirect back in if some additional not-crystalballing information turns up somewhere. That "somewhere" means "another place to redirect it"? Sam Vimes | Address me 21:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

S4C Closedown Screen
Someone has got rid of the S4C Closedown Screen main article. Now there is only one small paragraph about it on the S4C main article. What were your resaons for deletion? Please respond. (Cepb 12:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

Response
S4C Closedown Screen wasn't notable for being a programme on S4C. Is that why it was limited to a small paragraph on the S4C main article? What does small 's' and small 'c' something about the grand scale of things mean? (Cepb 12:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC))

2008 Categories
May I direct you to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and Video Games? N. Harmonik 17:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

An NBA season is both notable and expected to take place.
Also posted under talk page for 2008-09 NBA season

Sure thing. I removed the proposed deletion tag, since I believe that the 2008-09 NBA season article should be not be deleted w/o discussion, as per WP:CRYSTAL.

Three points to consider with Crystal Ball:

1) Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.
 * I contend that the 2008-2009 NBA season is both notable and virtually certain to take place. Therefore, I disagree with WP:PROD.

2) Similarly, individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, preassigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item
 * I would agree that this is an arguable point to delete this article, but not without discussion. There is speculation that certain cities may host the 2009 NBA All-Star game. Therefore, I disagree with WP:PROD.

3) Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate....
 * Not applicable in this case, IMO.

Now, I can see reasons to delete this article, but I can also see reasons NOT to delete this article. For instance, there are a few cities that would be considered front-runners for the 2009 NBA All-Star Game Game]],. For the record, the 2009 All-star game article is bunk and needs to be fixed.

Although the location of the 2009 NBA All-star game is ofically undecided, by nature of precident of other similar future-scheduled sporting events that are expected to take place, such as the 2018 Winter Olympics, I think it can be argued to keep the article. The NBA announced the 2008 All-Star game on May 22, 2006, which means that a decision would be forthcoming from the NBA within about 6 months. There is certainly specualtion considering what city may play host to this event.

Personally, this is where I draw the line, albeit weakly. I would agree that anything beyond 2009 is pure specualtion and would fall under WP:PROD as per WP:CRYSTAL. There is a very small set of information, however, which is just as speculative in nature as the 2018 Winter Olympics, that is applicable to the 2008-2009 NBA season.

Therefore, at the very least, deletion in this case should be discussed. I do not feel strongly enough to list it under AFD, however.

Roodog2k 20:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[DUMB]
Pretentious assumption on your part...perhaps you don't think that's why you assumed it tenuous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.3.46.173 (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

FAIL
''you have two section breaks numbered 18. That said, I will concede that in all likelihood, nobody else cares about that fact.''

Well, that's what I get for compiling a list backwards. Thanks for the heads-up. --Calton | Talk 02:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirecting articles, removal of content
If there is no consensus about redirecting pages and removing articles, please avoid disrupting by reversing the restoration of the articles. If you want articles to be created, please use Articles for creation, if you want them to be deleted, it's at AfD. -- User:Docu

Peace, please
Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xiner (talk • contribs) 04:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Merry Christmas!
 '''
 * Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays ! | A ndonic O Talk 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

. 

Redirect syntax
Hey there Chris, make sure that the redirect command is in all caps, or it doesn't work as you'd expect. Cheers! --Brad Beattie (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, that's news to me, but I'll be sure to check the casing in future. Without having to go through each of them and check which are lower-cased and what happens to them, what breaks?  If it breaks badly, I might look at going to Bot requests and seeing if they can be batch converted.  Chris cheese whine 03:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I think I'm wrong on this one. I always thought it needed to be in caps, but your redirects seem to work just fine. Paint my face red. :P --Brad Beattie (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine, but you're buying the paint ;-) Chris cheese whine 03:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

2009 World Baseball Classic Redirection
Hey, I noticed the back-and-forth between you and Hektor on this article. I think it would be in everyone's best interests if future changes of the magnitude you propose were discussed on the Talk page to reach consensus. I posted a message to this effect on that article's Talk page, as well.

Happy editing! --SuperNova |T|C| 08:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

23/Lost
Hola! Emperor and I have been chatting about the relevance of "Lost" to the 23 article. I'm with you; but he made a compelling argument for its inclusion. I won't add what you deleted back in, but he might. Just thought I'd FYI you on the happs. -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 21:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on Young Bond
Please reach a consensus on Young Bond Book 4 and Young Bond Book 5 before redirecting once again. This back and forth stuff needs to stop. YB5 faced AFD and survived and is long enough with proper sources that it deserves its own page. There is no crystal ball and no reason to redirect. Unlike some other books that have their own page such as Harry Potter, these books have been written (or for #5 are in the process of) and have release dates already announced. K1Bond007 01:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirection
After reverting your redirects, I posted a proposed merge/redirect on Alpine World Ski Championships 2011. If you wish to have these sorts of pages moved/redirected/whatnot, I would recommend you initiate proposals in a more formal manner, state your arguments on the talk page, and allow about a week to determine whether or not there is consensus for your proposal. This would need to be done independently for each page.--DaveOinSF 05:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Stub'ing
I noticed that you placed a tag on the article Rafael Reyes Prieto. In the future I would suggest you take a look at WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types so that you will be able to place a more accurate stub. Thanks--Tainter 00:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Opinions are not policies I'm afraid. Vashgunfighter 02:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)vashgunfighter

An Automated Message from HagermanBot
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 10:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I "sample" your sig?
I love your cheese/whine sig and was wondering if I could sample it for my own sig, with wine instead of whine though. :p Agne 23:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wire dab
I left a note requesting comment on the dab page, thanks. -- Stbalbach 17:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

stv -> STV
Post a note on my talk page when the move has happened, and I'll update the links. --Selket Talk 07:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

STV
Thanks for the update. I'm traveling now, but I'll be back on Saturday when I can update the links if someone hasn't gotten to it first. The redirects should be fine for now. Selket Talk 14:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Expandable Articles
Hi, there's a discussion on what to do with expandable articles here. As you've discussed this before I would appreciate comments. JASpencer 18:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Done! --Selket Talk 18:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Common era
I noticed you modified the Common era article to compute the year in other eras from the current year. I have two problems with this:


 * 1) Some of these eras do not begin on January 1 of the Gregorian calendar, so there are two "correct" conversions during any Gregorian year. The article was already flawed; it would have been more appropriate to say something like "The Hebrew calendar dates from the traditional Jewish date of Creation (according to which the year beginning September 26, 2003 was 5764 [Anno Mundi|AM]] (Astronomical Almanac 2003, p. B2)." Your edit makes the problem worse, in that the method for finding the year is obscured to the reader who does not view the source, so the nature of the problem is hidden.


 * 1) If the page is printed, there is no indication that the compuation was done in 2007, and the phrase "current year" has no meaning. Also, if a reader does not view the source, the reader will not know a computation is being done, and will presume "current year" refers to the time the section was written, an unknown date.

--Gerry Ashton 04:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

 *  User:Mais oui!'s comments copied here, since they insisted on removing them from their talk page - presumably upon realizing that they had been utterly wrong, making a tit of themself in the process. 

Congratulations, you have just broken WP:3RR. Just quit it. --Mais oui! 09:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to be mistaken. I count precisely three. As far as I am aware, the policy on duplicate articles is to Just Do It. Chris cheese whine 09:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, you have made 4 reverts in a 24 hour period, and you will be blocked unless you immediately self-revert. Read WP:3RR. --Mais oui! 09:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The content of WP:3RR is irrelevant - there are only three reverts there. Chris cheese whine 09:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "The content of WP:3RR is irrelevant" - ho, ho, ho: try that on an Admin. And please read Arithmetic. --Mais oui! 09:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3rr is not a right, if it is determined you have been edit warring, we can block you for less. Viridae Talk 12:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, you have not broken 3rr, but repeat that change one more time (and yes this does apply to mergers) and you will. Both have you have been running on the edge of incivility, but neither have broken into fully blown personal attacks that I can see. I suggest you both calm down, keep out of others way for a while or step away from the computer for an hour or so to calm down - there is no point in getting angry over wikipedia. When you do return to the computer/that article, please discuss the relevant changes ON THE TALK PAGE, and try and gain consensus one way or the other. Similar comments are being posted on the other editors talk page. Viridae Talk 12:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC) User:Mais oui! is one of the worst edit warmongers and POV pushers on wikipedia. He is an obsessive poster (just look at the number of "contributions" he makes each day) who blatently undermines the accuracy of Wikipedia articles. When is someone going to ban him? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.155.38.239 (talk • contribs).


 * Start an RfC. Viridae Talk 05:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Bippert CFD
Wow, that was amazing synergy. I was in the process of adding that very same CFD (along with a minor recategorization), only to find out that you'd saved your edit in the very same minute. I even labeled my edit 'CFD', even though my edit doesn't include that since you beat me to it. Great minds... Cheers. Planetneutral 03:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Planetneutral, yes great minds do often think alike, but please do your homework first before jumping to conclusions, there is verifiable references to Kurt Bippert, seek and thou shalt find.--Tara62 04:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Simtropolis (2nd nomination)
I did my job and followed what the consensus was at the AfD. The consensus was to keep, so I closed the AfD as keep. That's how it goes. I could use my discretion and possibly delete the article had the AfD resulted in a close-call with no achievable consensus.  Nish kid 64  22:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

re: your request on Deletion review/Content review
I have temporarily posted the page's contents to User:Chriscf/List of articles on criticism in Wikipedia. While in your userspace, you may attempt to clean up the article and improve it to meet Wikipedia's generally accepted standards. You may not create links to the page while it is in your userspace and you should not attempt to move any revised version into the article-space until you get some independent opinions that the issues raised during the original AFD discussion have been successfully addressed.

I'm guessing that your intent is to merge any missed content into either Category:Criticisms or List of criticism articles. If so, you might want to quickly convert both pages to the category. The conclusions of the AFD discussion clearly apply to this new page. I'm going to tag it as a speedy-delete|repost but will add a hangon tag so you can gather have a bit of working time.

Please also remember that this is a temporary restoration only. When you are finished with the version in your userspace, please tag the page with db-userreq. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 00:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment
Further to our discussion at my Talk, are you aware of this? --Mais oui! 12:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR

TNA iMPACT
They should learn to spell. Although, I don't think learning to spell would help them compete any better in the ratings with WWE. Just a hunch *shrugs*. Cheers, B mg <font color="#000000" face="Arial Black">9 <font color="#009900" face="Arial Black">1 <font color="#000000" face="Arial Black">6 <font COLOR="navy"> Speak to Me 20:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:TNA iMPACT!
In my opinion there was not a consensus to move. If you look through the archives of Wikipedia talk:Requested moves you will see that I an familiar with the WP:RM process and unlike some other admins take the opinion that the people who express an opinion on the page to be moved are the best to make the judgement about whether the page move goes ahead. If someone wishes to point out to them that the page ought to be moved to because to do so will place the name within Wikipedia guidelines then they are free to do so and presumably the people expressing an opinion will then decide if they wish to be persuaded by such arguments. I do not approve of the POV of the admin making the move being the sole criteria for the move. Only if the POV of the admin tips the balance either side of the 60% should the admin get involved in the decision (apart from walking away and not naking a decision). In this case I choose not be be involved, because I am not convinced by the information you presented in the discussion that I should reverse the decision. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Counting reverts
Please don't do that. This -   - isn't cool. You're not allowed three reverts; you're asked not to edit war. An admin closed the moves as a no consensus, which I agree was wrong, but the best reaction is not to try to do an end run around the close, citing some loopholoe from some ArbCom case. That smacks of Wikilawyering. We just need to request broader input, and it's very likely that the community will speak out against cutesy capitalization. If they don't, then it's us who's wrong.

Please try not to do anything that involves repeated reversions. Some admins will block you for that, even if you don't go over three. There are better ways to skin a cat, it turns out. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Just a note to say thanks for reversing the blanking of my user page! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Alansohn
Hi, please don't report User:Alansohn to WP:AIV. This is not vandalism, but rather a dispute between you. Dispute resolution is one way you could go. Heimstern Läufer 16:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is still not vandalism. I agree he has been uncivil to you, but he has not vandalised your talk page. Please use other resources besides WP:AIV. Heimstern Läufer 16:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion sought on Springfield Park Elementary School
A neutral third opinion is being sought to address the issues at the article Springfield Park Elementary School regarding the dispute over application of "Importance" tag and inclusion of details on extracurricular activities and school administration, following the process specified by Third opinion. You are invited to explain and justify your actions for the benefit of a neutral third party at Talk:Springfield Park Elementary School. Alansohn 17:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Springfield Park Elementary School, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Alansohn 17:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

List of football (soccer) players with 100 or more caps
Hi, you tagged this as a copyvio, but per Feist vs. Rural, facts cannot be copyrighted. As such, I've asked for a deletion review. Please feel free to add your comments there. Regards,  howcheng  {chat} 18:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please use your judgment
I seriously question the usefulness and utility of upgrading this anonymously-placed PROD to fully-fledged AFD. In general, if you're doing something for procedural reasons only, you shouldn't be doing it. Anyway, the correct response to a PROD you don't feel is valid is to remove the prod, not to escalate it. If whoever placed the prod really feels strongly about it they can bring it to AFD. You shouldn't. -- Cyde Weys  18:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on February 22 2007 to Springfield Park Elementary School
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 22:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Copy and pasted from WP:AN/3RR:
 * Reverts don't need to be 100% identical to fall under 3RR, and don't need to all revert back to the same previous version. Where possible, I noted the differences between the reverts, but with so many in such a short period, it simply wasn't possible.  I apologize on fourth one that you pointed out; I was confusing the Extracurricular list with the Administrators list.  The fifth revert is a revert though, as you reverted to the version you created with the fourth revert, et cetera.
 * I strongly disagree with the "talk page bit being bogus" as William said. Users are not supposed to blank warning messages, especially since in this case the 3RR warning was clearly valid.
 * That being said, I reported this solely as a neutral third party (hence reporting both users), and hopefully an eight-hour block will be more than enough to cool heads. -- NORTH talk 22:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 00:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

TNA iMPACT! (video game)
Why did you edit this article? It's bad enough you screwed up the regular TNA iMPACT! article, now we will need an admin to move it back. TJ Spyke 23:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

NVC
Hi. Thanks for your comment. I have a backlog of messages frmo other editrs to respond to. I will reply in due course. Regards. SP-KP 09:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I'm sorry, currently, I'm not willing to agree to a request to stop adding new pages, as previous discussions among editors resulted in a consensus that one page per community type was sensible; I'm more than happy to revisit the issue if you would like to, and if the outcome of a discussion is that that is not now appropriate, I will of course change my approach in line with any revised consensus. If you decide to start a discussion on this, let me know, and I'll join in. SP-KP 10:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I'm very happy to engage in a constructive discussion with you on this. SP-KP 17:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't see a discussion linked above. SP-KP 17:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

At the bottom of which page please? SP-KP 17:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to log off now, but if you can point me at the discussion you're referring to, I'll take a look at it and contribute. SP-KP 17:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Class 378
Please see TfL Board Meeting, 25/10/06 Agenda Item 4, Page 5 "Following the announcement for 44 trains for London Overground services, Bombardier have started mobilisation at their Derby plant. The first trains will be delivered in late 2008 and have been categorised by Network Rail as Class 378s." I believe that counts as verifible evidence. Hammersfan 11/03/07, 12.40 GMT

Lack of Respect
I've tried to prove my position and be gracious about it, but your purile and adolescent attitude makes it extremely difficult on my part to be civil. I suggest that you grow up and try acting your age, not your shoe size. And I don't give a hoot about WP:NPA either so cite me for it, I don't care. And by the way, bad luck that Wales lost to Italy. What a shame. I was so distraught. NOT Hammersfan 11/03/07, 01.32 GMT

Re:brian d foy
I did in fact read through all the arguments, and the arguments raised by the supporters of the move such as WP:MOS and Naming conflict do in fact make some sense, and this time I felt that the consensus was to move. I also took into account the fact that quite a few of the supports were from anonymous editors or those with very few edits. I hope that clarifies it - but if you still cannot see how possibly I could have come up with a move consensus, let me know. enochlau (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read everything again, and I still think it's the right decision. What I'm confused about is if you claim that WP:NCON does not care about capitalisation, how do you explain bell hooks, k.d. lang and fIREHOSE (examples given on the talk page)? enochlau (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've brought it to Administrators%27_noticeboard for external comment, because I'm not sure what to do now. enochlau (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, I noticed you had posted on the WikiProject Years talk pages & was wondering if you could check out my questions there? It would be a great help if you could answer them as I'm not familiar with the workings of the project fully... Thanks, Spawn Man 22:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

NVC - reply
Chris, I've said I'm happy to engage with you in a discussion on this. I've also said that as previous discussions determined that one page per community was OK, I'm going to continue to create them until that changes - you can't expect editors to change long-established practice just on the basis of one editor's views. Given this, I don't think I'm being at all unreasonable. You've said that there is an existing discussion on this, but I've not been able to find that - as I've said above if you can point me at it, I'll be happy to contribute. SP-KP 08:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. I have clicked on the link, but I can't find a discussion - I'm sorry. SP-KP 18:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Crossrail
Given you attitude towards the debate regarding Class 378, I have little interest in what you have to say regarding Crossrail route boxes. I have left messages with the other contributors on this page making my case. You can read my position at either of these honourable users pages and make your own mind up should you wish. Hammersfan 13/03/07, 22.55
 * Please don't hurt me kind sir, I didn't mean it really... and by the way, if you are going to revert the Crossrail route, you might actually do the job right and revert the whole route. It goes from Shenfield and Abbey Wood to Heathrow and  MAIDENHEAD   . Hammersfan, 13/03/07, 23.15 GMT

Metal Gear Solid
Thank you for the editing on my minor addition to the Metal Gear Solid article. When I woke up this morning, someone had completely taken out the entire paragraph I had added without leaving a comment, and I felt somewhat insulted. The final version that you left me with is precisely what I was looking for. The ranking system at the end of the game has always been one of my favorite features, and I felt it necesary to be added to the article. I've actually replayed the entire game several times (consecutively) in order to tinker with the ranking screen, and it was something that my friends and I have always enjoyed. Thanks to the input of a second person - you, hopefully my little addition will remain on the article. I appreciate what you have done and I will gladly accept any additional help in the future.Silent Siberia, 14/03/07, 01:17 GMT

User:Hammersfan
Hammersfan seems to have had some difficulty with some your comments. I've adviced he remains civil and follows Wikipedia policy. I would also ask that you think carefully when making comments to ensure your message is clear so that others understand that your discussing their comments not attacking them personally. Thanks. Adambro 09:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Flash Mob
Thanks for helping to keep the Flash Mob entry from spinning completely out of hand. I have a point and a concern regarding one of your recent edits there, I'd appreciate it if you'd consider this and would love to hear any response and further discussion from you regarding this over on the Flash Mob discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flash_mob#Term.27s_First_Use. Thank you. Cheesebikini 20:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

user:PinoyGangsta
Regardless of warnings, an admin may block an editor if the editor is there merely for vandalism purposes. Being that he has made 5 edits so far, and none of them have been legitimate, he is a vandal account. Please take action accordingly. PumeleonT 06:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Duplication not necessary
Please take a look at Notability (artists), Notability (films) and Notability (shopping centers) for more of that pointless duplication.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. It's turning into a pretty WP:LAME edit war, hence I'd appreciate a third opinion on whether or not that duplication is useful on the three pages above. Thanks.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's a reasonable answer, thanks.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Citing the WP:POL paragraph along with rejections
It seems that citing the reason for rejection pacifies the edit wars at the notability pages, where emotions seem to run fairly high. --Kevin Murray 10:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Need I point out the irony that at present, the only edit wars at the notability pages are about whether that paragraph should be duplicated there? (oh yeah and on whether section headers should be removed from failed proposals....) In other words it's an edit war to prevent edit wars.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, if that was good enough for World War I ... Chris cheese whine 10:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * apparently not.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Clapham Junction
Do you know how to sort this complex out? Simply south 16:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascism and Nazism as representative forms of socialism
I am sorry to bother you, but I really need some help. There is an ongoing campaign by a few editors to portray Fascism and Nazism as representative forms of socialism. As part of this effort (a debate that stretches back to 2004), there are a tiny handful of editors who revert and redirect National Socialism to Nazism. I believe a majority of editors support redirecting National Socialism to National Socialism (disambiguation). I realize we just had a poll on the Nazism page where I thought this issue was settled, but apparently the struggle is not over. Please consider voting in the new poll, or adding a comment at: Talk:Nazism. Also consider notifying other editors with an interest in this matter. I am doing the best I can, but need assistance. Thanks.--Cberlet 17:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Internet phenomena
Hey, I noticed you were working that article (thanks, by the way). I had left a note on the talk page about Talk:List_of_Internet_phenomena, was wondering if you might add your 2 cents. hobbie 15:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Unessessary
I hate you. Booby Poopa doopa. Chris cheese

I hope you will co-operate with me to bring down the vandal who has done this to my talk page. Obviously we know who the culprit is, but he needs to be punished. I doubt you will be punished, becuase people don't make those kind of mistakes. It's a disgrace that we have jokers like this on wikipedia as this is a free for all information site. It's not a free for all vandal's heaven, where you don't get caught. We seriously need to clamp down on vandalism. --Soopa hoops77 17:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * All very confusing! I've asked Zesty Prospect to not impersonate other users and to not make personal attacks. Adambro 18:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Cfd
Chris,

You may not be aware of this, but the provision we are discussing in WP:PEREN was added by a specific user to make a point in a discussion on WP:Cfd; I have challenged him repeatedly to provide me with a prior proposal from the archives of WP:Cfd to mandate notice, and he has not done so, pointing me instead to discussions on WP:Afd. There is a material difference, since categories do not autowatchlist and there are more often deleted without any of the people who have worked on them receiving notice. You can find this discussion starts at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion and continues at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. I have been through the last year's worth of archives, and while there has been recent discussion over the question of the lack of notice, I have found no proposal to mandate notice.

WP:PEREN is a nice little tool to shout down people whom one disagrees with, and that is how it was used in this case, with the editor, of course, inserting the unsupported little gem immediately before flogging me with it. After repeated requests, I still haven't gotten my answer - so, now I'll ask you, since you keep reverting the point, can you find me any proof in the archives that there is a perrenial proposal to require notice on a CfD? If you can't find this and show that it is indeed a perennial issue, I'd appreciate it if you would revert your change. A Musing (formerly Sam) 23:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, here is where the language was added to WP:PEREN: and here is where the point was used in an argument,; apparently, he didn't like the reading of WP:PEREN because it didn't make his point, so he changed it.  I do believe it is appropriate when someone argues like that for me to ask for support, just as I think it is appropriate whenever anyone adds something to Wikipedia to ask for a source.  As noted, I also think there is a difference in notice between the AfD and the CfD situation, and while the underlying proposal of requiring notice is not one I am pursuing, I'm rather disappointed that the crew on this particular page seems more fond of citing to lots of policies and changing pages to suit them rather than engaging in a straightforward discusion on the merits.


 * I would prefer not to leave WP:PEREN with unsupported language in it; if you do not want to go find some support, or if USER:Radiant doesn't want to find the support, the language should be put my way. A Musing (formerly Sam) 00:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Chris, come on, restore the tag, the stuff is dispute. And that gives you 3 reverts as well, which you know is improper.  A Musing (formerly Sam) 00:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have done nothing improper. Chris, do you disagree with me that the content is in dispute?  We are disputing it here, are we not?  That is the purpose of the tag.  A Musing (formerly Sam) 00:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

;)
;) -- <font color="Blue">The <font color="Red">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  00:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Vinyl Art
I was answering someone's question, not trawling through Image space for copyvios. Of course one challenges such things; that what I did. It's useless to ask the uploader directly on Wikipedia; if he deliberately mistagged it why should he tell the truth when asked? I contacted him at the account on DA where he had posted it, under the account name he uses there, and he confirmed there that he was the same user who had done the upload.

You've seen the photo; it's not just an album cover but an arrangement of objects including an album cover. It appears to me that it isn't a derivative work in the ordinary sense. (If you took a photo of someone who happened to be holding the album, would that be a derivative work?) TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Images in infoboxes
I'm saddened that you should use weasel words such "This was proposed on the project talk page, and was not opposed." when it would be more honest to say, "I suggested it and no-one else has made a comemnt". As you can see only one person put all these nameboards up, it would have been nice if you'd alerted me on my talk page first - it's just common politeness. I'm not going to get into an edit war with you over this, I can see from some other similar edits that you care not for the opinion of other editors and are determined to have your way. Sadly it's editors like you who make Wikipedia an unpleasant place at times. Remember, it's everybody's Wikipedia - not just yours. :-( DrFrench 21:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh haha. Very good.  There's a world of difference between recerting to the status quo and forcing through changes that you want without any consensus.  That's what I meant bny everybody's Wikipedia.  Don't bother responding with any smartarse comments, I;d rather you spoent the time building some consensus for your future change proposals. DrFrench 21:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And what does the first policy say? "Wikipedia works by building consensus."  Obviously you and I are not going to agree on thjis.  I suggest that we both walk away and try to avoid each other in future.  I'm guessing that would make us both happier. DrFrench 21:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the lecture. Now can we agree to ignore each other? DrFrench 22:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC) (Oops, early click).  A simple "yes" and a gentlemanly shake of hands will suffice.  DrFrench 22:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/ADERANT
Might I suggest that you review your comment in the above Afd as telling another editor to shut up could be taken as a personal attack, comment on content, not editors, cheers Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 11:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Bikini Car Wash Company
Replying here only because it's closed up - films do not qualify for A7, so it was an improper speedy deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

please clarify your opinion in the Tírghrá dispute
Hello Chriscf,

Thanks for providing a 3O in the Tírghrá dispute. I'm one of the two parties involved in this disagreement. I've not quite understood your point. Could you please restate it more clearly? Does the Tírghrá reference have a green or red light, in your opinion? Thanks. Itayb 13:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree I would like clarification. You can have no basis that the book is not a reliable source. It is used as a source by a number of accepted reliable sources - therefore that conveys reliable staus on it. Additonally is is the ONLY reliable source for a much information on republicans and is seen of the official "who's who" for those in the republican movement that have lost their lives. Additonally it is used as a reference in multiple articles and none of the information within in has ever been shown to be incorrect.--Vintagekits 14:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The book is used as a source in a number of articles such as Diarmuid O'Neill, James McDade, Kevin Lynch (hunger striker), Kieran Fleming, Martin McCaughey, Raymond McCreesh, Dessie Grew, Antoine Mac Giolla Bhrighde, Martin Hurson, Michael Devine, Michael Gaughan (Irish republican), Billy Reid (Irish republican), Kevin Coen, Daniel McCann, Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade, Mairéad Farrell, Francis Hughes, Thomas Begley and Joseph MacManus.--Vintagekits 14:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Cris
Thank you for your comment on the BRITTANICA discussion. The article just isn't worth debating over. The last thing I need is to have somebody saying to me "Come down from there at once! Good God, you are making a complete spectacle of yourself!" Seriously, thanks. I withdrew my objection to the deletion. I would appreciate it if you could get me a copy of the article to keep, as I do not have one, and I might want to switch it around so it's less controversial and remake it someday, or break it up and slip portions of it into other articles, or at the very least archive it so I can laugh at all the people with no sense of humor, lol.

Again, thanx for making me think. I would have continued butting my head if you hadn't posted.

Sue Rangell &#91; citation needed &#93; 23:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Policy
Please read How to create policy. Please note steps two and three under "How to propose a new policy".

I also refer you to WP:CIVIL. AlistairMcMillan 13:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Natural History of South Asia mailing list
Why don't you just go ahead and start a new AfD so we can close the DRV? It's clear that the consensus will be somewhere between relist and endorse closure but allow relisting, so the DRV isn't really going to accomplish anything useful. Mango juice talk 20:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

IfD on mock station name plates
There was no reason to delete the images. The images met all Wikipedia policies. The images served a purpose as they titled the infobox. Whether this is appropriate or not is another debate. -Regards Nv8200p talk 01:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you put the images back in the infoboxes. Unilaterally removing them when there is community concensus for using them could be construed as vandalism. -Nv8200p talk 01:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * They have encyclopedic value. They are in an article properly titling an infobox for that article. They have as much encyclopedic value as using text. -Nv8200p talk 01:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The overwhelming support for not deleting the images signals a concensus to me. You would have to cite a policy that indicates infobox titles cannot be images. -Nv8200p talk 01:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your nomination for deletion was no better then I don't like it. There was one nomination for deletion and six recommendations to keep. Close enough to a concensus for me. To pursue this further, I suggest you request a deletion review. -Regards Nv8200p talk 02:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is why we have the deletion review process. I've explained my reasoning. Please escalate the issue if you are not happy with my decision. -Nv8200p talk 02:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I
No! That is weird. I can only surmise it's a server glitch. I'll try to fix it. Grace Note 05:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the page actually looks okay. Thanks for mentioning it though. I'd hate to be turfed as a vandal without even knowing what I'd vandalised ;-) Grace Note 06:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Tyne and Wear metro nameboards
Please stop edit-warring over the issue of nameboards for the Tyne and Wear Metro station articles (e.g. Haymarket Metro station). Some kind of compromise needs to be reached, and persistent tit-for-tat reversions will not achieve this. I have left this message for all the editors involved.

As a compromise, I suggest having the nameboards somewhere else in the article but not as the station name in the infobox. Personally, I think this is the fairest solution. Please give it consideration. --RFBailey 19:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edits at ANI
Please don't remove parts of ProhibitOnions's comments. If this user wishes to provide context for his/her actions, that is perfectly fine, and it's not right for you to remove it because you think it is irrelevant. Heimstern Läufer 01:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Knock it off
You are inches away from being blocked.--Docg 22:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Striking through other people's comments on talk pages is not a good faith edit. Consider rereading the talk page guidelines. -- NORTH talk 22:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "I-238 may function as a spur of I-80 (functionally)." is a fact, it's either true or it's not.
 * "it is not legislatively a spur of I-80" - also a fact
 * "As Wikipedia is based on fact not opinion, I-238 should not be treated as a spur of I-80 on Wikipedia." - Wikipedia policy -- NORTH talk 22:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 12 hours for edit waring, and general disruption. You've been warned enough. Cool down and come back in a better frame of mind.--Docg 22:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I wasn't aware that engaging in consensus building and fact-finding was disruptive. Chris cheese whine 22:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

DRV
The 50% of us that said Keep quoted that it was notable, attributed and encyclopedic. This is definitely not the same as WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL. Also, if a nominator has provided no reason for deletion then there is no reason to delete it. To sum up, we did not say we WP:ILIKEIT or it was WP:USEFUL. Our arguments were grounded in notablility, attribution and encyclopedic status, which are policies and guidelines. Bowsy (review me!) 12:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Duplicates
Can you substitute on your subpages all svg-images for railwaydiagrams, which are duplicates, with the other one ? That will be nice. You can find them here. The filenames start with "BSicon" and contain the substring "STB" somewhere behind. Thank you. 84.150.215.245 11:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:User no GFDL
Just thought you'd like to know:

A template you participated in a Tfd for (Template:User no GFDL) has subsequently been speedily deleted, and is now under deletion review. Miss Mondegreen | Talk  16:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

50 Greatest Documentaries (British poll)
A "" template has been added to the article 50 Greatest Documentaries (British poll), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest 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. --Smtomak 00:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Request your comments
I created a proposal. Please comment here.

Note: Please analyze each proposal on their own validity - do not reject a proposal just because you rejected a different one. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Star for Chris
Hi Chris. you have a sense of humour or so we are told. Here's a Star for you.

FYI
Hi, there is currently an open discussion on whether or not DeviantArt should be moved back to deviantART. An earlier mediation on the same issue has been presented as a previous consensus in favor of "deviantART", yet it struck me as never having much of a discussion attached to it. Since you seem to have been involved to some degree, maybe you could offer some insight on that? - Cyrus XIII (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Geraint Vincent
I have nominated Geraint Vincent, 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 Articles for deletion/Geraint Vincent. 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. <b style="color:#FF3030;">ƒ(Δ)²</b> 09:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:MW
For historical reasons I have added you to this list, feel free to remove yourself if you ever return. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Chriscf! 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 ensure 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) 01:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Geraint Vincent -
 * 2) Alastair Burnet -
 * 3) Lord David Dundas -

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

WiciBrosiect Cymru
Ymunwch gyda WiciBrosiect Cymru os gwelwch yn dda! Diolch Titus Gold (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)