User talk:Fresheneesz

LAST ARCHIVED 05:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive
View the archive of User_talk:Fresheneesz

bird
What exactly are you doing to bird? I realise the page has a lot of refs but I don't see how puting breaks in helps. Could you discuss changes with the formatting of the page on the talk page with the editors who work on this article a lot? And what does an edit summary of rrr mean exactly? Sabine's Sunbird  talk  02:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Inexact differential
I finally tracked down the origin of this concept (term), it is from German mathematician Carl Neumann (1875). If you know how to make a "d" (with a cross-bar hat going through the handle of the d), please add it to the article. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 05:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yawn
"However, both of these are as controversial as a debate over yawning can be."

ROFL. Pure comic genious! 81.156.79.119 19:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

'Don't Destroy' essay
Hi there. I just saw your essay at User talk:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy, and posted a lengthy comment at User talk:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy. Please don't take my criticism personally - it's not directed at you, but at the essay, and the inclusionist/deletionist dichotomy I feel it promotes. Feel free to let me know if you have any comments in return. Terraxos 18:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 17:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CTscan.PNG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:CTscan.PNG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Maxim (talk) (contributions)  20:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!
As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish my twenty favorite fellow Wikipedians a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 04:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Wage-labour.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Wage-labour.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. --OrphanBot 23:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:SkyTran_Seattle2.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:SkyTran_Seattle2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Jusjih 02:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

MLA Format
I agree, it is retarded as hell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.146.54.139 (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Impactful
A tag has been placed on Impactful, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page 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.  Eskater 11  04:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia-only permission not good enough
Regarindg Image:SkyTran_Seattle2.jpg, permission to use it on Wikipedia is not good enough. Those kinds of images were banned over two years ago. You must get Douglas J. Malewicki to license it under a free license – such as Creative Commons BY or Attributon 1.0, 2.0, 2.5, or 3.0, the GFDL, in the public domain/copyrightedfreeuse. If he agrees to this, please have him send an email to permission AT wikipedia DOT org with a statement like this: "I, Douglas J. Malewicki, certify that I am the copyright owner of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SkyTran_Seattle2.jpg and license it under [so-and-so] license. I understand that the image can be used for commerical purposes and have deravatives without my permission or without payment." hbdragon88 08:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That refers to permission for a free license; the page just doesn't clarify it. Fair use?  To only be used under the direst of circumstances.  The SkyTran image looks easily replaceable – that is, a Wikipedian in the Seattle area could take his/her own picture of it and put it under a free license.  If it's at some special event, sure, fair use can be used, but otherwise it will generally be deleted. hbdragon88 09:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah – didn't know that it was concept art...that does throw more weight on it being used under WP:NFCC. hbdragon88 22:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I just added a fair use rationale to the picture. A much smaller version of the picture should be uplaoded, but I think we're all set for now. it would be very nice as well if you oculd convince Malewciki to release it under a free license, but, like I said, I think we're good for now. hbdragon88 08:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!
I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 17:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of state machine CAD tools
I have nominated List of state machine CAD tools, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/List of state machine CAD tools. 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. Anshuk (talk) 05:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Joyeux Noël
I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Merry Christmas! Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 21:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Emacs commands
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article List of Emacs commands, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Lagrange's formula
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Lagrange's formula, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Emacs commands
An editor has nominated List of Emacs commands, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Bus (electronics).png
A tag has been placed on Image:Bus (electronics).png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (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. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Redemptiedorpen
On your map, Image:The Low Countries.png, there are small enclaves of land in the Bishopric of Liege that are labelled "Redemptiedorpen." What does that mean? I couldn't find an article that referenced it and, unfortunately, I don't speak Dutch.

Excellent map, by the way. Coemgenus 19:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:SkyTran Seattle2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:SkyTran Seattle2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

energy]
I would really like some feed back on this Please send comments to wiki@profusionenergy.com --Regsoft (talk) 06:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of UniModal
Hello Fresheneesz, I deleted the UniModal article as purely promotional material which had then been whittled down by well-meaning users to conjectures based on hypothetical statements made by the organization in question, and having no actual, proven basis whatsoever in reality. No third-party references exist for UniModal's assertions about their products, except those that are based purely off of UniModal promotional materials. This should have been deleted long ago under speedy deletion criterion 11; that instead it was slowly whittled down to a few sentences and a fair-use (promotional!) photograph doesn't change that. You are free to request undeletion of the article, but I believe I was within the letter and spirit of the policy to delete it. Truly, JDoorjam    JDiscourse 07:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments on my talk page, and for the link to your essay. I believe you're referring to a string of articles I deleted about a year and a half ago, when I deleted a number of porn stars' bios where the articles made no real assertion as to their notability.  Of the hundreds of "pornographic actor" bios, I deleted a couple dozen, all but a small number of which stayed deleted, though it was mildly controversial at the time amongst the small circle of Wikipedians who tend to the pornography articles on the project.  I do try to be as objective as I can in all of my edits, especially administrative actions, and most especially deletions, but they are sometimes controversial nonetheless, and my first priority is the good of the project, rather than trying not to step on toes (though that is a priority too).  I commented at the DRV.  Thank you for being polite as well.  Truly, JDoorjam     JDiscourse 15:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Clesh
Hi, if you have time any input on Clesh would be appreciated. It's a new article for a sister of FORscene. It is being proposed for deletion. Your ID is on the original discussion trail for FORscene and think the Clesh discussion would benefit from any input you can offer. Regards, mk (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Just to let you know that db-meta should not be used directly, as it will result in the tagged page not appearing in any of the normal deletion categories. If you wish to use a customized reason, please use. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

SkyTran
Would you like to start merging Unimodal into SkyTran? Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image:SkyTran Seattle2.jpg
Image restored, happy editing! east. 718 at 20:49, May 13, 2008

Let it go man...
It's not worth it. Just ignore him and focus on the article. ATren (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop it. Now. Channel your energy into the article if you're frustrated. Firing back does nothing but get you into hot water. ATren (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes - remember to be civil. And come and visit me when the Terminal 5 PRT is up and running :-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oxyhydrogen
Does a probable scam really seem like it merits inclusion in wikipedia? Should Aquygen be able to use wikipedia as a tools to gain notoriety and credibility? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyonthesubway (talk • contribs) 22:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

SkyTran
Fresh, JDoorjam is essentially correct in his concerns. We can't just have claims that are unsourced or poorly sourced, even if we know they're correct for this system. I could swear there were some reliable third party sources for many of the claims, but I've been looking and I can't locate them. Maybe it was relying solely on the unimodal website as the source for technical details? I don't know.

Now, initially, JDoorjam appeared to react hastily, when he put up the AFD and then added the Malewicki quote. But since then he's been very accomodating, requesting citations and politely explaining his changes. This is not a whitewash, he has legitimate concerns - if you allow unsourced claims to describe the system, you open up the floodgates to all sorts of unsourced allegations, and we all know where that will lead.

So, I suggest you work with JDoorjam and try to locate some sources. One that I seem to recall was a Malewicki IEEE (or something like that) paper that described a hypothetical city in 2050 with SkyTran - that might be a source for system details, but I can't find it online (maybe you can get that issue from a library?). Otherwise, it will have to remain little more than a stub until sources document it. ATren (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Point of view forking
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 02:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Deletion of processing delay
Sorry for missing your last message. It was deleted because an editor Proposed it for deletion, with the reason WP:WINAD. I don't know why you weren't notified - you'd have to ask the user who added the PROD tag. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've restored it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Cordite.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Cordite.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


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

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? —teb728 t c 21:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"Etymology" section of article Chastity
There is no "Latin word" kes-; there is only a hypothetical reconstructed proto-Indo-European root kes-. No ancient Latin-language speaker could have reasonably deduced from the contemporary Latin language that the Latin word castus "pure" had anything to do with a word meaning "to cut". Furthermore, the concept of "caste" in its Hindu form was completely unknown to the ancient Romans; the English word "caste" originated from the use of a PORTUGUESE word in India in the 16th-century A.D. For these and other reasons, the "etymology" section was unfortunately very poor... AnonMoos (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Dude, YOU freely chose to add material to an article, so the clear obligation was on YOU to do so in a form that would be at least minimally acceptable for the purposes of Wikipedia, if you wanted the material to stay on Wikipedia. There was no real corresponding obligation on me to clean up after your low-quality confused mess -- I could have done so if I chose, but if I happened to choose not to take on that extra amount of work at that particular time, then the best course of action was to delete (which I did).  Probably things would go easier for everybody all around if you refrained from writing extended "explanations" concerning a somewhat technical subject-matter many of whose significant details you clearly have not mastered (starting with the spelling of the word "etymology"). AnonMoos (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Your unfortunate behavior
Dude, whenever you add meaningless random personal insults to my talk page (in violation of WP:AGF, among other Wikipedia policies), then I will feel perfectly free to delete your comments containing pointless personal insults (irrelevant to the topic of under discussion here) from my talk page. I haven't yet looked at article Chastity (it's a task I'm not really looking forward to), but when I do, if I find that the section is still low-quality (and not easy to fix without very extensive throughgoing revisions), like it was before, then I will feel perfectly free to delete it from the article at that time. If you don't like this, then that would appear to be your problem. AnonMoos (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It's really rather useless and pointless for you to attack and threaten me ("and impolitic too", as Elizabeth Bennet might say) considering the origin of this matter: I edited your talk page to add a substantive factual message (not personal in any way) which very clearly explained in detail why your edits to the article Chastity were factually incorrect, and not at all easy to fix without very extensive and thoroughgoing revisions (peruse edit diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFresheneesz&diff=253365956&oldid=251844207 ), and you chose to reply on my talk page with a ranting tirade which contained absolutely no substantive or factual content whatsoever, but instead consisted purely of insults and personal attacks (peruse edit diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAnonMoos&diff=253541782&oldid=253484281 ). There's a saying somewhere about the mote in your brother's eye vs. the beam in your own eye. Furthermore, I commonly remove remarks from my talk page which are vandalistic, or have no ascertainable meaningful relationship to the goal of improving Wikipedia -- and this practice is not "censorship"[sic], and I will feel perfectly free to continue to do the same in future, and if you don't like this, then that would appear to be mainly your problem. Also, I'm only allocating a strictly limited amount of time per day to the task of dealing with the effects of your aggravating behavior, so if my replies to you are somewhat delayed, that's why... AnonMoos (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I said you seemed to be having problem with spelling the word "etymology" because you added a section header "chastity etimology" to my user talk page. I never said anything about the spelling of "censorship" (though if I had been inclined to quibble, then I could have pointed out that the collective or mass noun "censorship" does not usually pluralize very well) -- the "[sic]" after "censorship" referred instead to the fact that you used the word in a manner which was not in accordance with its usual definition (and particularly meaningless when applied to Wikipedia, where extremely few edits to pages are truly "deleted" in any meaningful sense, as long as the pages themselves are not deleted).  I haven't yet considered in any detail your more recent edits to the article "Chastity" because (as I said) I'm allocating a strictly limited amount of time per day to dealing with the consequences of your behavior, and so far (over the last three days) all of the allotted minutes have been taken up with user talk page discussions.  In any case, I actually see little need for an extended etymology section on page "chastity", beyond saying that the word comes from Latin castitas which is in turn derived from the Latin adjective castus "pure".  All the remoter Indo-European etc. stuff would only really be relevant if it added additional insight to the precise meanings of Latin castitas / English "chastity" (which as far as I can tell, it doesn't). AnonMoos (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please look up the word "censorship", because currently you seem to have very little idea of its true meaning. If by "cooperating" you mean that in your view I am required to keep all comments on my talk page, regardless of whether they're abusive or irrelevant to productive cooperation in improving Wikipedia (and I would certainly include your remarks of "05:54, 23 November 2008" in both these categories, then you would appear to be out of luck. AnonMoos (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

User: Anonmoos
I reviewed your dispute and it seemed to play out in a similar manner as mine. Having had the experience I did, I pretty well knew how it would go from the moment you said 'Damn man, chill out.' I can see you were responding to the severely condescending tone of one who appears frustrated to have to explain something to the child you apparently are. Your edit on the article was sourced and it stayed close to the information on the page it was sourced from. That right there is enough to deserve respectful treatment. Your edit on Anon's talk page seems warranted and one most people would respond much differently to. I don't know what you hope to accomplish but reviewing this situation brought back feelings of frustration that are more than anyone should have from freely contributing their time to a good cause, and indeed, were enough to significantly lessen my desire to contribute. In hopes the result will be positive for everyone involved and will help to lessen these types of incidents in the future, I'll support your RfC. - - Lamba  jan  17:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You guys seem to be going down an ultimately losing road -- I certainly have little patience with certain types of foolishness, and can be abrupt and brusque at times, and if you dredge through all of my tens of thousands of edits, it's likely that you'll be able to find some which were "incivil" (rarely without provocation, however). But the original causes of the "disputes" (if you want to call them that) with both of you involved a certain amount of unattractive pettiness on your parts, and if you drag this through some kind of formal mediation process, it's highly doubtful whether either of you will end up having your own actions displayed in a very favorable light, even if you eventually manage to succeed in having some kind of formal rebuke issued to me... AnonMoos (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Unattractive, perhaps (though tone is often misinterpreted in written formats because most of us are used to transmitting the better portion of it nonverbally; so most people will give others the benefit of the doubt when their interpretation is questioned online). 'Petty,' however, is not a correct characterization. Indeed, your efforts to trivialize matters that are unflattering to you are what escalated these situations from normal tiffs and frustrations that all editors experience to damaging and unnecessary quarrels. I'm aware that I'm indicting you and this must be very unpleasant. Please know I'm also aware that we all have problems and you are a better contributor to this project than I am.


 * I think it's interesting that you're trying to dissuade us by cautioning that we may 'lose' and our actions may be characterized 'unfavorably.' I can see how some of my comments may cause you to react defensively, but I made my reasoning clear for supporting the matter: a "positive [result] for everyone involved [that] will help to lessen these types of incidents in the future." And I mean that. Given the way Fresheneesz responded, it sounds like he shares my mindset. The only way I can lose is if this same scenario plays out again in the future. If this can be achieved without an RfC, all the better.


 * Just like you probably didn't mean to come across as shouting and a bit condescending to Fresheneesz in your initial post, he probably didn't mean to come across as genuinely angry, but as he would sarcastically yell at a friend to calm down. In a similar way, my initial section title had a misleading tone (if you haven't already you can gain some more insight into that matter here). Many editors here have grown to dealing with eachother in a highly colloquial manner. When we found out you seem to take negatively to that we both changed our writing styles to cater to your sensibilities. In both cases the initial incident was very minor and for this reason could have been very quickly resolved. Humor and sarcasm are problematic when not taken as such, but working that aspect of it out is a relatively routine procedure when all of the editors view eachother as peers.


 * This is a collaborative project and maintaining an atmosphere that is conducive to this is essential for its success. To help build this atmosphere you can keep communication channels open until it's apparent that all participants have finished the conversation. You can also be a bit slower to judge and a bit quicker to realize that you may have misjudged. I'm always happy to find out someone is better than I expected them to be in one way or another. I'm also happy when I find that all I have to do to fix a situation is revise my judgments.


 * Please take a moment to consider that I'm not your enemy; I'm not trying to tear you down or prolong unnecessary arguments. The things I've said, here and before, are worth considering.


 * I'm sorry this is long but I thought I'd take the moment to try to accomplish my goals without the RfC, and indeed, if you respond positively here, I'll gladly withdraw my support for it.  - Lamba  jan  05:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Marriage
That is the dictionary definition of marriage. Go to dictionary.com type in "marriage". The definition is the same one that I put in the article. Legokid (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry...
I've been really busy lately, haven't been around here much. I'll try to get involved if I have time but probably not for a while. Things have been crazy in real life. ATren (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:14ilf1l.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:14ilf1l.gif I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Anonmoos
No, I don't mind postponing it. I was hoping that the little diatribe I put there would help to solve the whole thing, but it seems when you say too much at once people either don't like responding or don't know how to. I honestly wouldn't mind throwing out the whole thing if Anonmoos gives some kind of positive response to this whole thing. Unfortunately he seems to be looking at it like some kind of competition or something... so, no I don't mind giving the whole thing some time, maybe we can all step back and learn something.  - Lamba  jan  12:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi! I'm catching up with a few things. Is this still an issue? Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Units place
I just re-wrote the above article,which you created as a redirect at 2006-05-28T05:37:26, so I thought I should give you the 'heads up'. :)--Thecurran (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolution
I tried to answer your question concerning resolution, see discussion: Talk:Resolution_(logic)

AfD nomination of Solid-state ionics
I have nominated Solid-state ionics, 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/Solid-state ionics. 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.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  22:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!


As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!


I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of List of popular essays
List of popular essays, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of popular essays and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of List of popular essays during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 03:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Dirty burn
I have nominated Dirty burn, 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/Dirty burn. 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. Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 02:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Opamp-noninverting.png
A tag has been placed on File:Opamp-noninverting.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tim 1357  talk  20:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply
I did not delete Dirty Burn, as I am not an admin (the deleting admin was User:Tone). I nominated for deletion. Which means editors gathered discussed (which is here) if the article belongs on wikipedia and proceeded from there. The only thing you can do is appeal that discussion. When a discussion like this takes place for a week (or longer) an admin comes and see if there's consensus for delete, keep, redirect, or no consensus (the article is kept in this case). The admin (User:Tone) overlooked the discussion and said there was consensus for delete. The only thing you can do is appeal the admins discussion. First, you should contact the admin with your case before you appeal. Then you go to Deletion_review.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * One more thing, wikipedia is not a dictionary. That is wikipedia policy. That article was just a definition. I made that very clear in my nomination.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:U.S. Spending And Revenue In Relation To GDP.GIF
Thanks for uploading File:U.S. Spending And Revenue In Relation To GDP.GIF. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:U.S. Spending And Revenue In Relation To GDP.GIF
A tag has been placed on File:U.S. Spending And Revenue In Relation To GDP.GIF requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:FMRIscan.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:FMRIscan.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Fractional Reserve Banking
Just to let you know that your "backed by" edit in the FRB page was 100% correct. But I don't fancy your chances of winning the battle against the Fed supporters that patrol that page. The standards of evidence the "wardens" require for statements that support the Fed are low - even the Fed's own published propaganda is fine. If you want to say something critical then you need to provide evidence from 100 published papers by Nobel prizewinning economists. Reissgo (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well maybe you could help make the page a little more informative. I'd appreciate it if you could join into the discussion I'm having with BigK and Lawrencekhoo. I want to update this article so it has a little more realistic information. The usual info about 10% reserve ratios and multiplying the M1 money supply are a little too simplistic for my liking. If we focus on finding well sourced, understandable information, I don't think improving this page doesn't have to be a battle. Fresheneesz (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I made many changes myself and 90% were shot down by Lawrencekhoo. Lawrence believes that Wikipedia is all about giving the status-quo point of view as it appears in the textbooks. If the textbooks are wrong (which they are) then that's just tough luck. If we want to campaign for the truth to be widely known then apparently Wikipedia is not the forum to do it on. With regard the well sourced information - well that's won't work. I presented peer-reviewed published papers by Prof. Steve Keen for example - but Lawrence just dismissed this because he said Steve was a Heterodox economist and therefore non-admissible. You can't win. It's like trying to convert a religious fundamentalist to atheism. It does not matter how good your arguments are. If you want to protest, I suggest you make a website or a blog criticizing the wiki pages on FRB. Perhaps you could join the American Monetary Institute or http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/ or donate to Steve Keen's research... or help me with my yet to be published book... I am very keen to get people to read it and give me constructive feedback to make sure it is as good as possible before publication. My book criticizes the way FRB is described in the textbooks. Reissgo (talk)


 * Well, whats needed on wikipedia isn't neccessarily perfect sourcing, or truth, or anything else like that. What works on wikipedia is consensus. And the more people with real logical opinions and arguments helps to generate a reasonable consensus. I'm less interested in protesting, and more interested in understanding exactly whats going on in the world, and explaining that understanding to other people. I'm still trying to figure that out with respect to FRB, and I'm hoping that researching it and discussing changes to this article can help me (and through wikipedia, everyone else) understand it.
 * I would appreciate your help in coming to a consensus about things on that page, if you're willing to try again. Fresheneesz (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * My problem is that I don't think that the difference between "backed by" and "kept as" is very critical in the scheme of things. Both could be argued as correct. So I don't know how I could argue your case. I think there are far far bigger flaws in the FRB page than that. One major problem is that there is no clarity about whether the page is about "FRB as it might work in theory" and "The money creation process as it exists in the real world today". The system we have today could scarcely even be considered fractional reserve banking. Reissgo (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to help edit the page as a whole as well. I think it makes sense to clearly distinguish the concept of FRB from the way in which it is normally practiced. Fresheneesz (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You are a brave man... you had better prepare for war. Good luck!
 * By the way I just found out that Hipocrite has been banned from editing the page on climate change. -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hipocrite/10/2010#Wikipedia:Arbitration.2FRequests.2FCase.2FClimate_change Reissgo (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you seen my little spat with Hipocrite on the FRB talk page? See "time deposits". You can see what we're up against! Reissgo (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

FRB
I just read your thoughtful reply to my comment on the FRB talk page. Please excuse me for the wrong misconceptions that I had when I made that reply. I was writing in haste, and in my mind, had conflated what you and Ressigo had written. It may be that we largely agree about the essentials of how the monetary system works. I hold, as far as I know, a completely mainstream viewpoint about this topic. Let me outline what I believe the general mainstream understanding to be (which is also my viewpoint), and you can point out where you disagree with me (either about what mainstream understanding is, or about where mainstream understanding should be supplemented):


 * The money multiplier process occurs essentially as outlined in the textbooks. New high powered money is introduced, and the broad money supply is expanded through the lending and re-lending activities of commercial banks.
 * Commercial banks lend out some fraction of the excess reserves which they hold, and do not lend out more than the excess reserves they have on hand, unless they have made arrangements to borrow funds from another institution. It takes many rounds of lending and re-lending for the full multiplier effect to play out.
 * Holding high-powered money constant, the amount of broad money in the system is limited by either the statutory reserve requirements or other financial ratios (e.g. Basel II capital requirements) imposed by the central bank (or other regulatory agencies).
 * The actual multiplier is not equal to 1/rr (as defined in some textbooks). 1/rr is a conceptual simplification, much like escape velocity is a simplification (in that it doesn't take into account direction of movement, air resistance, the rotational velocity of the Earth, launching from different altitudes, etc.). The three main issues that it ignores are:
 * Cash held by the public, and excess reserves held by the banks, reduces the actual multiplier.
 * In many jurisdictions, the reserve requirement is not binding, instead the Basel II related capital requirements are what determine the multiplier.
 * There are several multipliers, one for each definition of broad money (M1, M2, M3).
 * The demand for money influences the supply of money:
 * Most central banks target interbank interest rates, not the quantity of money. An increase in the demand for money will cause interest rates to rise, and so cause an expansion of money supply as the central bank attempts to reduce the interest rate.
 * A spike in money demand can cause banks to run out of ready cash, in such a situation (essentially a financial crisis) the central bank will step in to lend directly to the commercial banks (as lender of last resort), thus expanding the money supply directly.
 * The fact that central banks respond and largely accommodate changes in money demand is related to the endogenous money models of the post-Keynesians.

As it stands, I think the article could make clearer exactly what simplifications are being made, and could discuss heterodox views a bit more. However, I think a more in-depth discussion about issues surrounding the money multiplier is best reserved for other pages (e.g. Basel II, money multiplier). Please let me know if we disagree on any significant matters.

Regards, LK (talk) 08:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you taking the time to see where we both stand on these topics. You clearly know a lot more than I do about monetary theory - I tend to be more of an ad hoc editor, using wikipedia to learn about a topic, researching that topic outside of wikipedia where wikipedia falls short, then going back and adding the information I find.
 * In any case, most of what you said makes sense to me. There are a couple points I think might also belong in there:
 * From what I read, it seems that (at least in the US) the reserve requirement doesn't require that banks create loan accounts from actual reserves, just that their loan accounts don't exceed a certain multiple of their reserves (the difference between creating a $9 loan account from a $10 deposit and creating a $100 loan account from a $10 deposit). If this is true (something I'm heavily leaning toward believing, but am not fully convinced of yet), then it would mean that the money multiplier as a limit isn't true - rather the demand for and base-supply of money is what limits loans - and thus the money supply (the only thing that really makes sense to me - thats how all of economics works).
 * I guess my other point was about demand being the main determinant of the money supply. But I suppose its not really a separate point.
 * So the first part of that idea can be sourced. The second part is not something I've seen much in what little I've read, but hopefully some sources can be found that will either confirm or deny it (or both?).
 * What I'm really interested in is to what extent all this stuff about expanding the money supply matters at all. And by "matters at all", I really mean - does it affect inflation? As far as I can tell, not all increases in money supply (or in all types of money supplies) cause inflation. And who really cares about changes in the money supply if it doesn't affect the currency? I'm much less hopeful of finding a source for that idea. Fresheneesz (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * To answer your first point. What happens is different in different jurisdictions; but in general, the central bank or other bank regulating authority periodically checks to see if a bank is keeping enough reserves and meeting its capital adequacy ratios. All a bank has to do is to make sure that it has enough reserves and meets its capital adequacy ratios at the time of the check. The frequency of these checks are different in different countries, and may happen once a week, twice a month, or once a month. The consequences are severe if a bank ever fails one of these checks.
 * Given this framework, suppose that a bank receives $1000 in new deposits today, giving it $50 in required reserves and $950 of excess reserves. It's Monday today, and it needs to meet its required reserve ratio on Friday. Does it:
 * a) Lend out $950 in new loans, and re-lend new deposits as they come in, or
 * b) Lend out $20,000 in new loans immediately, in the expectation that all the money that it lends out will be redeposited back before Friday, so that when Friday comes it will have $1000 in required reserves and $20,000 in new loans.
 * I can't state for sure for all banks in every jurisdiction everywhere, but for the banks I've experience of, I can assure you the answer is a). Keep in mind that loans are almost certainly immediately used to pay someone else once the loan is issued, and so the bank will not have enough cash to meet its obligations if it were to lend more than $1000. This is unless i) the bank is very lucky, so that almost every loan made is used to pay someone with a check, and b) all payees are also customers of the same bank, so that funds remain in the bank. Keep in mind also that the person being paid by the loan taker may very likely i) keep the money in cash, or ii) deposit it into another bank, or iii) take the money out of state, or iv) take the money out of the country.
 * But more to the point for Wikipedia, all textbooks say a). So any argument that b) occurs because of the way one reads banking regulations is original research. Also, regardless of whether a) or b) occurs, the money multiplier still functions, and still places a limit on lending. It's just the speed of the multiplier that's changed.
 * I'm not sure what your second point is, but I'll be glad to answer it when you have it clear in your mind. As to whether money supply increases have an effect on inflation, the answer is complicated. For the long run inflation rate, (i.e. over 10 years, say) most economists will agree that the increase in the price level over the last ten years depends almost entirely on i) the growth of the money supply, ii) the growth of the real economy, and iii) to a much lesser extent, any financial innovations that affect the real demand for money. In the short run, Keynesians would argue that changes in the inflation rate depends on whether Demand exceeds or is less than Supply for the economy as a whole. (There are also various heterodox views on this issue of what happens in the short run.)
 * LK (talk) 08:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fresheneesz I have already supplied about 4 references from central banks or central bankers that show they dont lend reserves but rather create credit and then manage the liabilities this creates for them. let me know if you cannot find them. The fed says that reserves play very little role in money creation today - check the FED reference that has been updated (same reference) to show the deposit multiplier table is essentially a simple illustration rather than something fixed in concrete.

In the USA a bank with no deposits can create a loan for a customer and use fedwire to send the money for the purchase and get an overdraft for the day. It then either use the Feds discount window with collateral to get an overnight loan or it use the interbank money market to get wholesale funds. The banks prearrange loan funding by getting lines of credit and deposts from other banks but these can be lent to other banks so that the bank is funded for its expected loans but has very few actual reserves in place other than what are required where at any one moment it is not required to have any reserves but rather has to keep an average number of reserves for a particular number of deposits when deposits are measured at a particular time. Ie if it has 1000 deposits today then it would be required to have an average of 100 reserves for the next reserve maintenance period where during that period it does not require to have any reserves moment to moment. An agreed ready to use HELOC with available funds requires no funding via Basel - think about that:-) Neither do unused credit card limits. If you get a credit card with a 5000 limit you just got a loan.  Only difference it does not pay interest until you spend money - unlike if 5000 was transfered to your current account. But the heloc and credit card are the same thing of course from the point of view of bank liability at this moment in time unless they cancel it in the next moment in time - which they can do of course - depending on terms and conditions.

>>>LK. Keep in mind that loans are almost certainly immediately used to pay someone else once the loan is issued, and so the bank will not have enough cash to meet its obligations if it were to lend more than $1000.

As i said banks can deposit collateral and get on demand fed loans simply by paying the small amount of extra interest and before that during the day there is an overdraft without collateral at the lower nominal Fed funds rate rate. Given the large amount of central bank documentation and quotes that are available it is difficult to believe there is a fed conspiracy. Certainly not one at the BOE anyway. The combined US banks can borrow hundreds of billions each day without collateral and although they are only temporary loans they can be transfered to longer term loans no problemo at a higher interest with collateral and there is a vast money market to get interbank loans from before the end of day when the overdrafts have to be paid back

Please have a look for the additions i made under the '=== Alternative views ===' section of FRB where i added some text beginning "In the United Kingdom, money is endogenous" - Mervyn King Chief Economist of the BOE in 1994 Please let me know if you want to discuss any aspect of this. thanks Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Non-free rationale for File:PETscan.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:PETscan.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
I'm new to trying to editing Wiki, and haven't had time to go through the details of that, but I noticed you posed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JK_latch_%28AND-NOR%29.png

The J-K are revered in there location. The J is supposed to be the "set" and K the "reset." The K is supposed to be in line with the Q output. So for now I'm giving you a heads up, if I get time I'll figure out how to edit wiki files later.

Enjoy the kittens message

DasWulf (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC) 

Proposed deletion of Date windowing


The article Date windowing has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non notable concept

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shadowjams (talk) 07:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Date windowing for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Date windowing 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/Date windowing until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Shadowjams (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Third Opinion on dispute
You requested a third opinion on the WP:3O noticeboard, but your request was poorly formed, and there's no way for us to respond to it. It seems to me though that there's nothing to dispute here. Editors are allowed to propose articles for deletion. Discussion occurs, and decisions are taken. It looks like exactly the right thing is happening on the AfD page for this article. I'm going to remove your request from the 3O page, but please feel free to add a correctly formatted request if you still feel there is something left to resolve. You need to add a dispute section to the talk page of the disputed page. 3O requests can't really be used to deal with misconduct. If it's any comfort to you, if a deletion happens and you disagree, the article can be undeleted, so there's no need to panic. Abhayakara (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

My Closing Your DRN File
Hi Fresheneesz

Sorry about the FIRST closing statement. I made a mistake with the shortcut and pointed you to WP:DR instead of WP:DELREV. I thought that DR would redirect you to WP:DELREV.Curb Chain (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If I don't want a specific deletion reviewed, but rather want the conduct of a user who frequently proposes deletions in an out-of-policy way, and also systematically ignores users attempting to resolve a conflict, this isn't the proper venue, correct? Fresheneesz (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:RFCC is the correct venue. Also, I have changed the WP:DR statement that you quoted to only content disputes.  The reason that we don't deal with conduct disputes is because they can be very very complex and can extend over more than a year, which will require extreme scrutiny in order to render a judgement that is fair and neutral.  For example, a user can make a vandalistic edit once every month, but to determine bad faith in such a case is basically impossible which is a serious incident and is usually referred to ANI.
 * By the way, thank you for your pointing out that statement on WP:DR. That is very keen of you.  Regards.Curb Chain (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks, i'll try rfcc. Fresheneesz (talk)

Proposed deletion of Date windowing


The article Date windowing has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Article doesn't describe notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mjs1991 (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of VIP_(disambig)
Hello Fresheneesz,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged VIP_(disambig) for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, VIP (disambiguation).

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks,  " Pepper "  @ 19:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Length extension attack


The article Length extension attack has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Confusing description of a technique that doesn't appear to have any reliable sources in google.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

John Walker contact info
See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Walker_%28programmer%29#Damnit_John.2C_where.27s_your_contact_info

Incidentally, your "Wannabe Kate" link on your User page doesn't work: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?site=en.wikipedia.org&username=fresheneesz Clark42 (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mirror (programming), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dart (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

File:B-tree.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:B-tree.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fuebar (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Your transformer polarity circuit image
If you have some time I would appreciate any help you could give with Polarity (mutual inductance). I have been defending your circuit diagram for what seems like a long time and could use some explanation help with the pos and neg not matching the dotted ends. He doesn't understand it and wants to replace it with his own drawing. I feel the drawing is fine and demonstrates he difference between absolute and relative polarity just fine while showing different terminal layouts. Thanks. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll see if I can add some commentary later today .. or tomorrow or something. I added that so long ago, I may not be able to help much, but I'll see what I can do. Fresheneesz (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Malus law.png
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Malus law.png, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Malus law.png missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Malus law.png

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Chorus Motors for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chorus Motors 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/Chorus Motors until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of WheelTug for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WheelTug 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/WheelTug until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

GFE on Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences
In response to your question on my talk page regarding what I imagine was intended as a good-faith edit: Thank you for asking. I reverted it because your edit changed the subject in the lead sentence from the agreed-upon compromise name "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" to the least-used (but official) title of the prize, placing the most common name (by over a ten-to-one margin) for the prize, "Nobel Prize in Economics," after both the least-used title (the official title) and the second-least-used title (the compromise).

To explain further: while I understand that some individuals consider calling the prize "the Nobel Prize in Economics" to be controversial, because the prize is not one of the original prizes established in Alfred Nobel's will, the title used in the article, "Nobel Memorial Prize," does not have this problem, and this compromise name is still more commonly-used than the official full title of the prize. For this reason, the compromise name was settled upon as the title of the article and as the appropriate way to refer to the prize in the lead paragraph of the article.

To explain why I marked your edit as good-faith: I did this to indicate that my assumption that you were correcting what you believed to be an error and not attempting to restart the unproductive ideological battles that occur from time to time over the name of the prize. The current compromise is informative, unambiguous, and an appropriate balance between using more common names and avoiding a name that some find upsetting. Each of WP:POVNAME, WP:PRECISION, and WP:COMMONNAME supports using names that are more commonly-used, so I think this compromise is on pretty solid ground, especially since there's a redirect from the most-commonly-used name, "Nobel Prize in Economics."

RaveX (talk)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Bothodd.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory
Hello. I noticed your page moves regarding the Theory/TV show. And you've probably noticed the moves were promptly reverted by somebody else. His edit summary may not have explained the situation thoroughly enough though, so I thought you might like to know that page moves of this nature have been discussed ad-nauseum throughout the years and the current situation is a result of community consensus (whether it was actually a consensus to keep the status quo, or simply an inability to reach a consensus to move, is a matter of one's perspective). I thought I'd leave you a short explanation of the history of the current situation because I couldn't find any obvious links to the previous discussions on either of the talk pages in question. Cheers.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 21:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a note regarding 's message, in the header boxes at the top of Talk:The Big Bang Theory is a box labelled "Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)". Talk:The Big Bang Theory/FAQ contains links to all move discussions, none of which achieved any consensus to move. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation guys Fresheneesz (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Uncivility on Gravitoelectromagnetism
I don't care if I'm not involved or if you're "right" - this and this is pathetic. There is no need to be rude.

I would implore you to retract the name-calling and be to the point, but since you probably thrive on vitirol, talking properly may cause you to explode. M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 21:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Seconded. The negative parts of those posts were totally unnecessary. Please think twice before submitting such comments in the future. Rschwieb (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You know what, I've dealt with too many deletionist who think nothing of spending 5 seconds destroying what someone spent a few hours creating. I think its wrong of people who do that, and that feeling comes out in my words. Don't think that deleting people's hard work is something to do casually. Fresheneesz (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * None of this is an excuse for that behavior, but a great many of us know what kind of frustration you're feeling. With a little practice, I'm sure you can channel that energy into reasonable arguments, rather than wasting words on uncivil exchanges. See you around! Rschwieb (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I admit my post was a bit over the top, but the basic point is certainly true and hopefully it was clear.
 * That said - I'll see what I can do for the article in question. M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 00:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for keeping everything more civil than I did! Fresheneesz (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Wisegeek
Please read this discussion on using Wisegeek as a source. --Neil N  <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding better sources. You may want to read Help:Referencing for beginners to see how they can be added properly. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not a newb, i'm just lazy. There's no problem with people adding good but imperfect information on a wiki, since other wiki editors can correct those flaws. Fresheneesz (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=630441524 your edit] to Silent Generation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * While there were many civil rights leaders (such as Martin Luther King), writers such as Gloria Steinem, and artists (such as the Beat Poets), the Silent Generation is thusly named

HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 * Now it is asking if one were to do it via a multipxer for Jd and Kd thru Ja and Ka and each gerated by using a multiplexer that is a 8 to 1 line multiplexer for each J and K controll. it says to write down the 8 input lines of each multiplxer, including alternatives.  It says the least significant address lines is the ones and is connected to Qa and the most significant the fours, adress line is for each multiplexer is Qc.  It states that Qb is connected to the twos adress lines in each case.

please helpDoorknob747 (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

A clear, path based, browsable organization of wikipedia
I don’t know exactly what the mechanism was by which they were phased out, but at its inception Wikipedia did have a hierarchical organization just like that. At least one other Wikipedia kept them long after en: IIRC, and may even still have them. I can only assume that as the project grew, they became somewhat arbitrary and cluttered—if you look at how many categories some of the larger articles have, you see why that could be cumbersome at the top of a page.

It seems like it should be possible—say, in JavaScript—to engineer some sort of add-on that does display categories’ parents. ( ADDENDUM: Et voilà) —Wiki Wikardo 17:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Paypal Mafia on Fortune Magazine.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Paypal Mafia on Fortune Magazine.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Extra pair copulation
Hello Fresheneesz,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Extra pair copulation for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Prof TPMS (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

check "illustrating" in the Tyranny_of_the_majority
Hi,

I see your name at current "history" page, can you check this illustration section? --Krauss (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks to the review (!)... can you check again? Now at talk page --Krauss (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chocolate Agency


The article Chocolate Agency has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable company.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Citobun (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

File:GreaterThan.png
Just letting you know that on File:GreaterThan.png, which you created, there is a typo: "irrefelxive" → "irreflexive". --The1337gamer (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Files listed for discussion
Some of your images or media files have been listed for discussion. Please see Files for discussion/2017 January 7 if you are interested in preserving their usage. Thank you.

Unfortunately, the images have NAND and NOR reversed. NMOS NAND has the transistors in series, but PMOS NAND has the transistors in parallel. Since the images include the text "NAND" and "NOR", I can't just swap them.

File:PMOS NOR.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PMOS NOR.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. ATTENTION : This is an automated, bot-generated message. 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) 23:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for openion
Article Legitimacy (criminal law) has been requested to be moved to Legitimacy (law) requesting your openion at Talk:Legitimacy_(criminal_law)

Thanks and regards

Mahitgar (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Mechanical battery) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Mechanical battery, Fresheneesz!

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

"redirect to dab"

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

Learn more about page curation.

<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 16:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Typo in caption of File:GreaterThan.png
Hi, in your File:GreaterThan.png, there is a typo ("irrefelxive") in the caption. Best regards - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

General sanctions notification
Primefac (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:PMOS OR.png


The file File:PMOS OR.png 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, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:PMOS AND.png


The file File:PMOS AND.png 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) 01:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Inexact differential symbol.PNG


The file File:Inexact differential symbol.PNG 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, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Gated SR latch.png


The file File:Gated SR latch.png 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) 01:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:JK latch.png


The file File:JK latch.png 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, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

"Solid electrolyes" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Solid electrolyes. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 31 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. rayukk &#124; talk 10:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

"Strangness" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Strangness. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 21 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 16:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of List of American television programs by debut date for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of American television programs by debut date 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/List of American television programs by debut date 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. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 21:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

"Black rock dessert" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Black rock dessert and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 29 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 23:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Doug-malewicki-sportsman-of-the-year.webp
Thanks for uploading File:Doug-malewicki-sportsman-of-the-year.webp. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Environmental effects of bitcoin
Hello.

As I'm sure you can guess, the article for Environmental effects of bitcoin is contentious, and the lead is a product of compromise and discussion. Obviously the article's talk page is the place to go into detail, but I don't think calling saying "The environmental effects of bitcoin are highly controversial" is going to work for a few reasons. In addition to WP:WEASEL linked in my edit summary, implying that bitcoin isn't harmful to the environment is a WP:FRINGE position, so 'both sides' should not be presented as equivalent. It's also too vague. I would encourage you to start a discussion on the article's talk page about the other changes you made. Grayfell (talk) 02:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's move this discussion to the talk page. 02:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to She-Hulk: Attorney at Law‎, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Particularly, read WP:USERG where it states: Although review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic) may be reliable when summarizing experts, the ratings and opinions of their users are not. DonQuixote (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)