User talk:FWBOarticle

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Hay, you just can't win tonight can you? Still you're very persistent :-) Nobody 19:33, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not - its yet to be allocated (as far as I know)- and as I've edited the article I wouldn't be able to be it. Secretlondon 03:53, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Edits to Baha'i Faith
Ignoring that you took a reasonable paragraph and produced sentence fragments in its place, you have introduced substantial errors of fact into the article.

I'll TRY to work with what you did, but a lot of it just is wrong in terms of terminology. We spent a LONG LONG time getting a section on Schism that didn't result in constant edit wars. Please review the talk page before jumping in. Rick Boatright 06:33, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gaijin
You seem to have removed almost all wiki-links from the article on Gaijin, to the extent that it has been listed on cleanup.&#8212;Rory &#9786; 01:36, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. I just wanted to make you aware that your rewrite had removed many wikilinks from the article. cleanup is a list of pages needing people to clean them up. Gaijin was listed on it after you removed many of the links. I do appreciate that you are trying to remove POV from the article, so I hope you don't take my comments as criticism. By the way, it's better to leave comments on a user's talk page than on their user page. I've moved your response to my talk page. You can get to it by clicking on the smiley face in my signature.&#8212;Rory &#9786; 14:26, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

It looks better now. There aren't really any rules about what should or shouldn't be linked. I suppose that any term used that someone might want to find out more about should be linked. You get a feel for it after a while. Good job.&#8212;Rory &#9786; 22:50, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

FWBO
Well, my edits to FWBO have lasted 24 hours! We'll see how things go. What style of T'ai Chi do you practice? Fire Star 16:34, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Greetings. It has been another 24 hours and the edits are still in place. Perhaps they were neutral enough? Perhaps they just haven't been noticed yet... I've practiced the Wu Chien-ch'üan style of T'ai Chi for almost twenty years now, my teachers are Wu Chien-ch'üan's great-grandson and grandson. Fire Star 13:09, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your purpose
''Tend to get involved with articles that don't have a neutral presentation according to my POV. So I tend to have a lot of edit/delete wars with others.''

Hi there - Listen, I actually appreciate what you do - you got me to think a lot about what I was writing at Hinayana. I learned a lot, and I researched a lot. But you got to be less lazy with third party opinions. If you want to be NPOV, you must work on being less POV in your arguments. I know it is hard - I find it hard to do, and I appreciate your helping me to see POV in my writing; I hope that you can see that your writing also is still very POV, so it fails just as mine does.

If you are actually not interested in wikipedia NPOV, but just don't like the POV of others when it conflicts with yours, then you are really just a troll. Saying "Me bad" encourages others to think of you as a troll.

Hey, it's your choice.

To get good NPOV ratings (so that others won't revert/editwar), your writing must remain plural, must show all the angles, and must depend upon independant verification. That means citations from texts, urls, scholars, and other third parties, and it is your job to find those references, not your opponents. Also, debunking third parties doesn't actually help your cause; and certainly making broad generalising statements will always give everyone a headache, just like any reductive comment. Continuing to do so is troll-behaviour.

Regarding Hinayana, I am glad that we are beginning to see the light. I am away for a few days, so don't go spoiling the good work!

Keep well- 20040302


 * Hi guys. I may be sticking my nose in here where it doesn't belong, but there is something I find interesting in the POV/Buddhism issue you are discussing. If everything in the phenomenal world is a transient product of cause and effect, then when using expressions of this world we will be inextricably tied to cause and effect. In other words, we all have a POV of some sort whether we want to admit it or not. I agree of course with 20040302's description of how to get good NPOV ratings, but I believe that NPOV is an unattainable ideal by the limited rules of the phenomenal world. Evolution beyond the world of suffering to our original nature (as well as the Mahayana principle of "skillful means") demands that we attempt it, of course, and perhaps someday it will be achieved perfectly and this world will end as a result! So, I think that FWBOarticle's "me bad" is perhaps a jocular recognition of this principle rather than trolling. Or perhaps not. Cheers, Fire Star 14:38, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * No probs. Try reading the first item on the agenda at NPOV Objections and clarifications. Does that help?

While we are there, FWBO, try reading subsection that discusses religion - where it informs us that the religious articles should cover early ideas not just current ones. (20040302)

Id like agree with the comments here about POV, but on another issue. Ill repeat some of what Ive been saying in the talk pages for some pages you recently edited. Your comment, after deleting some information on Japan has frequently been something like:

"deleted something which was added by someone who is having international custody dispute with his Japanese spouse."

Im not sure why it is relevant whether a contributor is having a custody problem in japan or not, nor how you would know whether that is true. I suggest that instead of accurate, on/off topic, or biased. Doing otherwise will suggest that conversely, you have an agenda.

Also, if you edit for stylistic reasons, for example to delete inline links, you should step back and take a look at the entire article. Just doing something like this in on section and ignoring it in other sections can also make people question your motives behind your edits or deletions. The best solution would be to make the change universally over the entire article, and to FIX the problem rather than just delete useful information. In this case, you could simply move the links to the External Links section rather than deleting them entirely.

Finally, as another poster mentioned, your edits did get my thinking about how to rewrite and present things more neutrally. But I sure wish there were a better way than an edit war. :-)

List of Buddhists
Foobo, why did you remove Tojo and Manuel Noriega from the list? My source on Tojo is Brian Victoria Zen War Stories which talks about Tojo's interest in Pure Land Buddhism while he was awaiting trial. And what does Noriega have to do with Japan? - Nat Krause 06:53, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I daresay Hideki Tojo is more famous than among most of our readership than the vast majority of other Japanese political figures. And, until recently, the category he was in was called Infamous Buddhists -- it's questionable if that was a good idea -- before the Aum Shinrikyo guy changed it a couple days ago.  So his claim-to-fame was supposed to be that he was in some sense "infamous" and a Buddhist. (If we don't bring back the infamous category, I'm not sure where to put Shoko Asahara). - Nat Krause 07:12, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't see a problem including most of those Christians you mentioned on a list of Christian politicians (which is currently hopelessly stubby). Elizabeth I definitely should be mentioned, since she reverted England to Anglicanism after the Catholic interregnum of Mary I.  Anyway, I don't really think we need a list of Buddhist political figures, and I'm not sure we should have a list of infamous Buddhists.  But, either way, the list would be more akin to the "celebrity Buddhists" -- it's not saying that they have any more influence on Buddhist thought than Keanu Reeves or Anita Mui.  Hideki Tojo was one of the most famous Japanese people of the 20th century and he discussed Buddhism under interesting circumstances (while he was awaiting trial for war crimes, which is, of course, part of why he is so famous), which could possibly indicate that he was more pious than the average Japanese person, too. I think this would justify continuing to include him on either list if the lists continue to exist. - Nat Krause 08:36, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Quite a nice edit on Vegan
Wow! Nice edit on Vegan 18:09, 15 Dec 2004 FWBOarticle (Nutritional). Informative. Short. Nice. Gtabary 18:31, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

keirestu
Hey,

Saw your note on the keiretsu article. I too want to make that article better. Am very busy dealing with japanese corporations (they are so damn many of them), but if you want to jump in and research the subject, that would be great. Even if you can just put research results in the talk page... Thanks in advance. Christopher Mahan 17:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Flowerofchivalry
Hi, I think your input would be useful here. I don't know how much of it you saw, but even if you could write something in the "outside view" section it would help - you were involved in some of the discussion. Cheers John Smith's 13:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Economics
Glad to see you're editing again, but your additions amount to original research. If you can find some reliable sources that support what you're adding, that would be infinitely more valuable. See Verifiability for more. Thanks - Taxman Talk 19:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

agree
I agree with your viewpoint. Ofcourse, the truth is that jain and buddhist concepts of dharma were derivatives from the hindu concept of dharma. In their earliest forms, they were exactly similiar, though over the ages, they have diverged into their own.


 * OK, I stand corrected - what I should have said is that Jain and Buddhist versions of Dharma are derivatives from the same source as Hinduism (though radicalists would insist that Hinduism was already well formed by the time the Buddha came around!!!)


 * I think it is better if a common article elucidates on all 3 interpretations, and possibly do a comparison, without diverging into 3 seperate articles. That would be like repeating history.


 * Pizzadeliveryboy 19:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Imperial Japanese Navy
Hi FWBOarticle. Thanks for you comment on the Imperial Japanese Navy talk page. I've done most of the work and research so it's nice to receive this sort of comment. Actually, I thought you were a sort of troll/vandal based on some of you past edits to Buddhism-related articles (as well as your self-introduction on your User Page). ところで、本当に日本人ですか？PHG 05:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi FWBOArticle-さん. Thank you for your response. I'm not so sure there is such a thing as "nice" trolling. It can be demotivating for other users, force them to respond agressively, and sometimes make them wish for more restrictive Editing policies, or even abandon Wikipedia in disgust.よろしくお願いします.PHG 08:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced archive
(copied from teh Help desk, with furhter response. DES (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)) I'm not a newb but did not know much about archiving talk page so I gave a shot by clicking move. I mispasted texts and had to redone it few times. In course of my mishap, I somehow manage to mislpace entire two pages somewhere else. I have no idea how I did it. Can someone help me recover the archive? Plus can someone tell me what I did wrong so I won't do it again? Please... FWBOarticle
 * I'm working on this. Can you tell me how many diifferent archive pages there ought to be? This is a bit of a mess. DES (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is what I found, as nearly as I can reconstruct it:

See also the page move log and the list of related talk pages

Note that you moved Talk:Friends of the Western Buddhist Order to Talk:Friends of the Western Buddhist Order/Archive1 twice. This would have overwritten whatever was moved there the first time, adn that is what I think i ahve been unable to recover. Note also that several of your moves were to malformed titles. You must be very careful with the title when doing a page move. All the actual content I was able to recover was luring in Talk:Friends of the Western Buddhist OrderTalk:Libertarianism/Archive1, a rather unlikely place to find it.

Discussions from 2 July through 16 July 2004 is now in Archive1 (This is the point at which content was previous blanked and "archived to the histroy tab"). Discissions from 16 July 2004 up to 7 December 2005 are now in Archive2.

If there was an talk content between the end of the current Archive2 (on 7 December 2005) and the start of the current talk page (on 26 Jan 2006) I can not find it. It may have been lost in the double move I mentioned above. I hope this is helpful. DES (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I screwed up archiving before. Nearly two years ago, the page was getting too large.  Because there were only two person in the debate and the other guy wasn't doing anything, I (a newb) tried to archive it.  Because I didn't know how to do it, I deleted the entire talk page, then wiki linked to a page in history.  As of the second archving attempt I have no Idea what I did.  I thought I figured out how to use "move".  So I wanted to shift the fist talk page properly into Archive 1 and the current page into Archive 2.  Instead, I somewhat misused paste and added wrong title to Archive page (which explain "libetarian").  So I tried to correct my mistake but then the page content has dissapeared. May be, my case can be used as example of what not to do in archving page?  Hope my explanation helped.  Thanks.  FWBOarticle
 * I figured that out soemwhat. Please look at the archives as i have created them, and see if they seem to be complete or if anything is missing. DES (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Japanese Emperors
I notice you've been making a number of incorrect edits to the articles on Japanese emperors. One was blatant error since you referred to the current emperor in Emperor of Japan as Emperor Showa, which is obviously incorrect. In any event, Japanese emperors are given posthumous names that, ever since Emperor Meiji, have been the same as the era over which they reigned. The current emperor is not Emperor Heisei and will not be until after his death. He is now simply referred to as Tenno Heika (which isn't a name, but a title) and his name technically remains Akihito, which nobody in Japan uses when referring to him. Most people outside of Japan tend to refer to him as Emperor Akihito or just Akihito. People who say Emperor Heisei are simply wrong. Simlarly Showa Tenno was not named Showa until after his death. I think you may be confusing the era, or the nengo, which is decided when an emperor takes the throne, with their posthumous name.-Jefu 03:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I got your rather belittling response. That sure is a lot of arrogance for someone who obviously has no clue what he is talking about. Do a little more research on the topic of emperor names in Japan, you'll figure it out eventually.-Jefu 05:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Responses on my talk page.-Jefu 06:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Liberatianism
Could you please take a look at the talk page ; your response is desired. Alienus 19:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

R. J. Rummel
I see you have encountered the ineffable Ultramarine. You have my sincerest sympathies, since I have beeen dealing with his Rummel-worship on Democratic peace theory for months; you are welcome to take a look at it.

What position is Ultramarine trying to remove from that article? (Briefly, if you can, please; I'm trying to avoid reading acres of diffs.)

I saw one of your edits suggesting that Ultramarine was Rummel. while tempting, I doubt this; Rummel writes better, reads sources much better, and (while polemical) has better manners; and has a better grasp of statistics. Septentrionalis 03:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Vote For Deletion
Hi FWBOArticle. Small request, given what I know of your sense on these matters. I'd appreciate you weighing in (either way) on this AfD vote. Peace. Metta Bubble 15:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

distinction between racialist and racism
You said in the edits that racialist is a white supremist idioum. I disagree even if White Supremacists use the term. Racialism and racism are clearly two different things and just because liberals like to use the term racist and supremacists like to use the word racialist it doesnt make the words lack credibility.

JJstroker 22:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

racialist
Sure but I already discussed it on the white australia page. I just believe in presenting articles with accuracy. I dont have a problem saying something is perceived as racist if its accurate. If you notice professional hitler pages on other websites they dont say that "This evil man" or "This racist policy". Even on hate groups like the KKK dont say they are racist. Even if 99 percent of people agree with these statement it is still a viewpoint and we wouldnt be a good encyclopedia if we wrote from viewpoints. Many liberals feel that something is racist and they are compelled to put it in because they cant acknowledge that people can do something against another race and not be racist.

For instance I worked on a page for a United States Senator named John Rankin. The page states that he was racist and I didnt remove it or change it to racialist because he clearly was. How can I tell? Because he refused to sit next to people of a different race and even said that he didnt like people of a different race without any reason. There is no argumenting there he was racist. Its not really a viewpoint. But saying that the WAP is racist is clearly a viewpoint.

Also just because people want to preserve their culture it doesnt mean they are racist. For instance if someone follows a different religion and lawmakers want to prevent religious tension and refuse to allow immigration of people from a certain religion who is to say that is racist? I believe that qualifies under racialist.

The WAP was clearly racialist. Is there evidence that the people who installed the policy hated Asians and other races just because of their skin color? There is absolutely no evidence and any information presented can only be interpreted as a viewpoint. That is why I went into a big duel with Harry Potter because he would keep putting racist. The article has to let readers decide for themselves if the policy was racist or not. Liberals have a tendency on racial matters to put racist for any article which shows other racial groups in an unfavorable light. The people who made the WAP clearly felt that they were superior to other races and wanted to preserve Australia to aviod conflict. THis doesnt mean they hated the people.

JJstroker 23:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Forgiveness article
Thank you for your comments. I agree that there is a lot of similarity in the ethic of reciprocity, and certainly it overlaps into forgiveness. I have planned to look harder at that page when time permits. I still want to try and get a section from all the major religions on forgiveness (or perhaps avoidance of resentment via avoidance of attachment from your perspective). I would like people intimately familiar with the various religions to do the initial writing at least. I simply do not have the background to understand the perhaps subtle, but important, issues that should likely be included. I agree that the Christianity submission could use flushing out. I am giving it time to develop. I put together the ACIM part, which is more up my alley. Actually my personal interest is more in the secular application, but for me to fully grasp the concept it is important to understand the various interpretations. I would greatly appreciate it if you were willing to do the submission, even if it is to say that the concept is approached differently and explain how. Thanks. --speet 21:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Is this a correct view?
 * "Buddhism offers no form of redemption or forgiveness, heavenly hope, or final judgment." It has been added as the Buddhist view on forgiveness. But I see it comes from a Christian source.  Any help would be appreciated.  As the Dali Lama wrote The Wisdom of Forgiveness it would seem that the concept does have some place in Buddhism, although perhaps by a different name.

--speet 01:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I took a stab at it. Let me know what you think.  forgiveness  Thanks--speet 10:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Tezuka Osamu
Thanks for your kind help regarding my query. I appreciate it. Iron Ghost 01:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

sin in Shinto
I have been trying to research exactly this. Can you suggest any texts I may look up? Thanks, Chris 21:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. The reason I asked was about the absolution of sin after death. You had said "Shinto views one's sin absolved after death is quite correct. One reason is that Shinto doesn't really have clearly defined after death concept". Thanks, Chris 17:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability
Hi, please don't archive policy talk pages by moving them, because it breaks up the page history. Thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

(rmved warning msg in error, the bot got its diffs wrong again, sorry about that) -- Tawker 03:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Old version and different version
I either misunderstand the 3rr or misunderstand the presentation format. Can you tell me what I'm missing? FWBOarticle
 * The first link is to the old version, which you did correctly. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th reverts (etc.) need to be "diffs". To get these, click history, click the radio button next to the revert and the one directly below and to the left of it, then click Compare selected versions. The URL of the resulting page is what you must post as the diff. I know it's time-consuming, but it also discourages frivolous reports of 3RR violations. Stifle 22:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Username
Dear Fooby,

Hi! I'm glad to see that we are both editing Wikipedia again. With both of us on the case, I'm sure problematic articles will get fixed up in no time. I look forward to working with you on reforming Buddhism (although, of course, there will be times when I disagree with some of your suggestions and vice versa).

I see that you were editing for a while under the name Y**i H*j*me. It seems to me that that makes a more appropriate username than "FWBOarticle", which implies a singleminded fixation on that one subject. I like to encourage users to use their real names. However, I can see where, for various reasons, you might to maintain some anonymity and therefore don't want to use your real name. In situations like this, I recommend choosing an alias that sounds like someone's real name, even if it's not actually your name (I even volunteer to help you make one up!) This might create a slightly better impression toward your fellow editors.

Note that you can ask Wikipedia to move your account to a new name, so you wouldn't have to create a new account in order to change names. Cheers, Nat Krause(Talk!) 23:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. Well, naturally, do as you like. If you want to use your name (half of it, anyway), why not consider an alias like Yoji Takahashi or Yoji Taira or such? As for Vapour, I think that you can't take over idle names right now, so you might have to consider choosing something else similar instead. I've heard a rumour that they might change the rules so you can get "Vapour" if it's idle, but I don't know if or when that will happen. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 23:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Buddhism
hi -- I have no problem with moving some detail from Buddhism to Siddhartha Gautama (which is really a redirect to Gautama Buddha). If I may suggest, please note the correct spelling "buddha", and please sign your comments on Talk pages with ~. thanks! bikeable (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Buddhism
Thanks for all your efforts on Buddhism. However, can you please try to remember to spell Buddha correctly: "Buddha", not "Buddah". - Nat Krause(Talk!) 04:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you know, it's pronounced as "Buda" in English, too! - Nat Krause(Talk!) 04:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Nanking Massacre
Could really use your help over at Nanking Massacre. It seems like it's just me versus the Chinese nationalists. Need some more common sense people who really want to clean the article up. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Bueller 007 09:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah anyone you don't agree with is a Chinese nationalist. You're nothing more than a Holocaust denier and stooge of the Jap government.--PatCheng 02:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Good resource
Don't know if you've seen this before, but I've found a good Japanese page about the massacre:

http://members.at.infoseek.co.jp/NankingMassacre/

Jerry Jones/JJstroker
FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jerry Jones/JJstroker. -Will Beback 10:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:sectstab
You created this but it looks like an accidental edit (maybe of sectstub?). Could you tag it with db-author to save time over at Templates for Deletion? If I'm wrong, please disregard this message/weigh in over at TFD. Thanks! -- nae'blis 18:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Buddhism
I have removed the text identifying the Middle Way with the Eightfold Path from the article Buddhism. I don't think this should feature in such a prominent position, and would be better in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta article. Rentwa 18:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:RJRummel.JPEG
A tag has been placed on Image:RJRummel.JPEG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. BJ Talk 13:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kenji Ohmi
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Kenji Ohmi, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:StarvingBoysAndGirlsInCork.jpg


The file File:StarvingBoysAndGirlsInCork.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

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) 01:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)