User talk:Dpleibovitz/Archive 1

Template editor
I've ignored the guidelines for granting  and given it to you given the special circumstances involved. Please don't make any sweeping changes to high-profile templates. Please read Template editor, and, in particular, the section on abuse. Good luck, and thanks for fixing HTML issues! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk page header
Please don't add the talk page header to talk pages. It's just a very wasteful use of space. I would like to see it deleted altogether, but there are cases where there are archives that it lists. If a talk page doesn't have any archives, it has no value whatsoever. Greg Bard (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Greg, I've never had a Wikipedia talk with someone before and do not know whether to respond here or on your own talk page.
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: I believe that talk pages may encourage discussion, and that is a good thing. Of course, I don't actually know and will defer to other's better judgment.
 * I've looked at the archives, and some support wider use but there is no consensus. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9
 * The current Talk page guidelines state There is no need to add discussion warning templates to every talk page, or even to every talk page that contains a discussion which doesn't help determine when or why they should be used. See 7
 * As for taking up space, I'm wondering if the entire header could be made invisible on a per-user basis (i.e., via CSS customizations) as it is done for other notices.
 * Perhaps Wikipedia should have a novice/expert toggle that could be applicable to numerous notices?
 * As for consistency, I've noticed some projects use it religiously, while other are haphazard and some never at all.
 * Dpleibovitz (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:talkdoc
Go for it, I just closed this discussion. When you are done, move it to the 'ready for deletion' section in WP:TFD/H. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Emergic cognition
I deleted the Emergic cognition page for you. Usually for this purpose, we use the speedy deletion templates - next time you can just tag the article with db-g7 if you're the only editor of the page. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 04:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 14:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reinforcement learning, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Exploitation. 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) 11:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Theonym


A tag has been placed on Theonym, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of solitary animals


The article List of solitary animals has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * If done properly, this list will include probably almost all animal species in the world

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. MiguelMadeira (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

hello
this is wordsighn. I just joined project wiki boxes and i cant find myself on the members list can you help? Wordsighn (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

You are certainly listed in the large category of Category:WikiProject Userboxes participants, but page to here to see your userid. Dpleibovitz (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve 1007 in philosophy
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Dpleibovitz, thanks for creating 1007 in philosophy!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Can you please add your source(s)? At the moment, this is likely to be tagged for deletion as notability is unclear and it has so little information.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve 1073 in philosophy
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Dpleibovitz, thanks for creating 1073 in philosophy!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add sources and more information to show why this article exists.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve 1079 in philosophy
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Dpleibovitz, thanks for creating 1079 in philosophy!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Same issue as with other articles.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve 1142 in philosophy
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Dpleibovitz, thanks for creating 1142 in philosophy!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 3 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve 1257 in philosophy
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Dpleibovitz, thanks for creating 1257 in philosophy!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please do not create unreferenced articles.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve 1270 in philosophy
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Dpleibovitz, thanks for creating 1270 in philosophy!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Same issues as the others.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve 1316 in philosophy
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Dpleibovitz, thanks for creating 1316 in philosophy!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged as unreferenced, incomplete, a stub and lacking clear notability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve 1347 in philosophy
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Dpleibovitz, thanks for creating 1347 in philosophy!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged as unreferenced, incomplete, a stub and lacking clear notability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve 1433 in philosophy
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Dpleibovitz, thanks for creating 1433 in philosophy!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged as unreferenced, incomplete, a stub and lacking clear notability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Sense of wonder
I have just expressed support on its talk page for the merger of Sense of wonder with Wonder (emotion).PopSci (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Category:Animal dance has been nominated for discussion
Category:Animal dance, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor(talk) 07:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Category: Pejorative terms for people
I've performed one revert, but thought I'd open a discussion before doing any more. I would argue that this category shouldn't go onto a disambiguation page that has no entry that counts as a pejorative term. If I was browsing the category and followed a link to such a DAB page, I would be rather confused. And I'm actually thinking that disambiguation pages shouldn't go in such a category at all, since they are by definition not content pages. You should just include articles that actually describe pejorative terms. What are your thoughts?&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that a pejorative definition entry should be added to all such disambiguation pages, not merely the categorization of Category:Pejorative terms for people - I have already started doing so, and will fix the others. Technically, each term (pejorative) could have its own article, which I have less time to do, and it is too similar to Wiktionary so would be deleted unless more substantial - I am not an etymologist. However, I am concerned with both positive stereotypes and negative ones (pejoratives), and I think the categorization is a good way of indicating that a term could be problematic. Dpleibovitz (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're trying to accomplish, but please, please do not do that. Disambiguation pages are not meant to list every possible meaning or even dictionary definition of a term. They just exist to guide readers toward a topic that we have an article for and is ambiguous with what they searched on. Absolutely do not start making mass changes to disambiguation pages without first reading WP:DISAMBIG and WP:MOSDAB. Otherwise you will just cause other editors to revert a lot of changes.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 04:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please go back and remove all of the dictionary definitions that you've added to disambiguation pages. I started to go through them, but it's taking a very long time.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Mindless) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Mindless, Dpleibovitz!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Please note that all of these, except the film, are Partial title matches, which normally shouldn't be on disambiguation pages. The band Mindless Sinner is probably never or very rarely referred to as simply 'Mindless' by reliable sources."

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

--Animalparty! (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bad ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ass check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ass?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). 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) 09:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Bad category application
Hello,

Category:2 (number) is about the number 2 - aka the article 2. It's not for any article that vaguely involves two of something, or about concepts that apply to 2. So most if not all of your additions don't make any sense. For example, 2 is an even number, but even numbers are not two (diff). A binary star has two of something, but 2 itself is not a binary star.

On a side note, there's a de-facto AFD open concerning the "Mindless" page you created at Talk:Mindless (film) - your page doesn't really comply with what a disambiguation page is for. SnowFire (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The "Mindless" page seems to be resolved as other things within Wikipedia named mindless have been added.


 * The Category:2 (number) page should be more explicit in what should go in there, but note that by your logic, almost all preexisting entries would also be eliminated. For example, a Category:Duets involves 2 people, but 2 itself is not a duet. I thought Category:2 (number) was to categorize anything related to the number 2. I was also trying to be consistent with Category:1 (number) and Category:3 (number).
 * Dpleibovitz (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Then yes, some entries should be removed from those categories. Category:0 (number) is a good example of the kind of articles that should be in these numerical categories - articles like Parity of zero, Leading zero, etc. that are actually talking about the mathematical concept.  Or, for one, 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ⋯.  SnowFire (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Would you think it useful to have a new Category:2 (related things), Category:2s, or something like that as well? (of course also for zero, one, three, ...). Personally, I would rather extend the allowed contents of the category to "notable twos". Or perhaps, extend an existing subcategory. Note that the article 2 does talk about dichotomies, binary stars, etc., so such numerology is important/notable to many - and perhaps are examples of what is meant by the concept 2. Should we move this discussion to Category talk:2 (number)? Dpleibovitz (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but nobody ever watches Category talk pages in my experience. You may want to ping a related Wikiproject or board so that people know there's even a chat going on if you want more input.
 * In general, articles / categories on "related things" were okay in "early Wikipedia", but started getting zapped after 2006 or so. See Articles for deletion/Number of the Beast (occurrence) and the like, which listed a bunch of media / works / fiction / quotes / etc. that referenced 666.  I suspect 2 would have the same problem, except it'd be even larger - the number of articles / categories that have 2 of something is truly dizzying.  Not really defining enough for a category, IMO.  That said, I could be wrong; if you think there's merit to a category, go ahead and advocate for it, but I'd definitely recommend running it past someone else first, and/or nailing down EXACTLY what will qualify for it.  Wikipedia talk:Categorization might not be a bad place to ask.  SnowFire (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Wacky (behavior) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wacky (behavior). Since you had some involvement with the Wacky (behavior) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I added my 2 nickel's worth (no more cents in Canada).Dpleibovitz (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Not a binary relationship
Set membership is not a binary relationship. Paul August &#9742; 18:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I changed these to Category:Binary operations. Dpleibovitz (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a binary operation either! Please stop assigning cats you don't understand. Paul August &#9742; 19:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You are right in that it is not a strict binary operation on sets, but it is in the less than strict Category:Binary operations which includes all operators with arity 2 and need not be restricted to sets. Or is that cat specifically for set theory? Note that the term "binary operator" is also used in computing (my background). See Operator (computer programming) Dpleibovitz (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, yes I was supposing that that cat was for mathematical objects. Paul August &#9742; 03:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Equivalence has been nominated for discussion
Category:Equivalence, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor(talk) 21:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Equivalent units has been nominated for discussion
Category:Equivalent units, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor(talk) 18:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Scheduling class has been nominated for discussion
Category:Scheduling class, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Urgent request
Please take a break in creating new categories and new redirects, until it becomes more clear whether there is any consensus for what you created so far. You might consider writing full articles though, because with your background you should have plenty of access to reliable sources in your field of study. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. I assume I can continue to categorize existing redirects (or articles) to existing categories, or should I stop that too? Dpleibovitz (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I assume so too. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Class (grouping) has been nominated for discussion
Category:Class (grouping), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor(talk) 06:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Category (grouping) has been nominated for discussion
Category:Category (grouping), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor(talk) 21:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Simplification has been nominated for discussion
Category:Simplification, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Unary operations has been nominated for discussion
Category:Unary operations, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Nullary operations has been nominated for discussion
Category:Nullary operations, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Humankind (grouping) has been nominated for discussion
Category:Humankind (grouping), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing
Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how infobox ship is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Future entities has been nominated for discussion
Category:Future entities, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Assumptions has been nominated for discussion
Category:Assumptions, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Category:Bacteria cognition has been nominated for discussion
Category:Bacteria cognition, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of 1257 in philosophy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1257 in philosophy 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/1257 in philosophy 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. &raquo; Shadowowl  &#124;  talk  19:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of 1073 in philosophy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1073 in philosophy 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/1073 in philosophy 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. &raquo; Shadowowl  &#124;  talk  16:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of 1142 in philosophy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1142 in philosophy 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/1142 in philosophy 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. &raquo; Shadowowl  &#124;  talk  16:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of 1270 in philosophy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1270 in philosophy 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/1270 in philosophy 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. &raquo; Shadowowl  &#124;  talk  16:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of 1316 in philosophy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1316 in philosophy 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/1316 in philosophy 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. &raquo; Shadowowl  &#124;  talk  16:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of 1347 in philosophy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1347 in philosophy 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/1347 in philosophy 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. &raquo; Shadowowl  &#124;  talk  16:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of 1433 in philosophy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1433 in philosophy 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/1433 in philosophy 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. &raquo; Shadowowl  &#124;  talk  16:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of 12th century in philosophy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 12th century in philosophy 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/12th century in philosophy 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. &raquo; Shadowowl  &#124;  talk  09:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of 1007 in philosophy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1007 in philosophy 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/1007 in philosophy 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. &raquo; Shadowowl  &#124;  talk  09:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:Equivalence classes has been nominated for discussion
Category:Equivalence classes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor(talk) 20:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

SSIM (disambiguation)
Hi Dpleibovitz, to quote MOS:DABMENTION, "If the topic is not mentioned on the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic". I agree that many things are listed on disambiguation page that are not mentioned in Wikipedia, and if editors don't remove those items, than the pages quickly lose their usefulness. Leschnei (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Shadow biosphere
Hello. I strongly apologise to bother you, but if you don’t mind, Id like to ask you a favor. It seems that there are some errors in the articles Shadow biosphere and Desert varnish. The citations from them: Carol Cleland, a philosopher of science at the University of Colorado (Boulder), argues that desert varnish, whose status as living or nonliving has been debated since the time of Darwin, should be investigated as a potential candidate for a shadow biosphere; It has been suggested that desert varnish should be investigated as a potential candidate for a "shadow biosphere". I am almost certain it is a kind of misinterpretation or very poor paraphrasing, because the source materials clearly say that according to some scientists the Desert vanish could be a possible product (or effect) of hypothetical microorganisms, but not them themselves. For example: ''And a promising example is provided by the desert varnish proposed as a target by Cleland and backed by David Toomey in Weird Life. "No laboratory microbiologist has been able to coax bacteria or algae to make desert varnish," he states. "It is also possible that the stuff is the end result of some very weird chemistry but no one has been able to reproduce that either." So yes, these sites could provide proof of the shadow biosphere's existence, he argues, (Life on Earth… but not as we know it); Cleland speculates that a microscopic form of life may have been producing desert varnish for eons, but scientists simply haven't figured out how to detect it (Is desert varnish a pathway to detecting 'alien' life?); also, according to the sources Darwin wasn’t really wondering if it is living or nonliving, but rather biological or not - it’s not the same thing, the citation from the second one of the sources I previously mentioned: Although some scientists have claimed they solved the mystery, Cleland said nobody has really proven what causes it since Darwin himself puzzled over those dark patches of varnish in the 1800s. "He himself was wondering if they were biological," Cleland said. "He might be the first person who wondered if they were biological."'' Could you please take a look on it, and corect these sentences, please? You’re a much more experienced user than me, and additionally I don’t speak English very fluently, so wouldn’t want to make any mistake. I’d be very grateful for your help. Thank you in advance. Kind regards, Jojnee (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Assumption has been nominated for renaming
Category:Assumption has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Our W in puzzle.svg


The file File:Our W in puzzle.svg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "file is NOT FREE and accidentally uploaded to wrong server"

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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Our W in puzzle.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Our W in puzzle.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)