User talk:Jeepday/Archive 7

Rudolph...
Would it be alright to get an email response from him or his darling reverend? p.s. thanks for notifying me of previous response on my talk page, please could you do the same when you respond to this as I am not "always on" and have quite a lot of talk pages watched... Egg  Centri  c  00:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * More then a simple email is required, the pages Requesting copyright permission and Donating copyrighted materials for an overview of the process. If you choose to do so, leave a comment at s:WS:COPYVIO this will delay the actual deletion while the process of obtaining copyright is ongoing. Jeepday (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the help. I've left a note there and I will be in touch with the webmaster of that site (and consequently Rudolph). We'll see what they have to say. Egg   Centri  c  13:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not reasonable to wait a month for OTRS to respond. Indeed, my understanding is that the point of that template is so the possible copyvio can stay up while OTRS get to work. If you look at what the policy says that's fairly clear. I won't revert until you respond to this though...

P.S. If you have access to OTRS why not look yourself? Egg  Centri  c  20:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Great! Thanks! JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
I modified the text of proposal to address your concerns. Please, review your !vote. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Jitter problem at Jérôme Bignon
I'm unsure what the source of this problem was. In the meantime, I updated my computer's software and of course rebooted in the process. Something seems to have fixed it, since the problem has gone away. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear that :) JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Hammersoftest
I'd suggest a longer block then the one day. Username and first edits hit another user User:Hammersoft I don't think they are here to help. I know it's not AGF but this to me at least is a duck case. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If you are correct, I am sure the next block will be longer. Jeepday (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries he was on someone elses radar apparently and block was already extended. Sorry to bug. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Macedonian Treasure Trove
Hi, You recently declined a CSD copyvio for above article. If you do a search for the first sentence of the article in Google, you will find that the text was previously posted to Facebook and to the blog I mentioned. Therefore I tagged it as a copyvio. It seems to have been removed from there after I nominated the article which may or may not mean that the author of the Wikipedia article is also the person who owns the blog. That would raise serious COI and advertizing issues ("our magazine"). Travelbird (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But it is not a copyvio for speedy delete. Sounds like a great candidate for an AfD. Jeepday (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Travelbird (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

RE: Vandal
I was citing disruptive editing, a pattern where the editor just goes around daily adding unsourced content despite previous warnings and block(s). Dan56 (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The edit right before the final warning here was delibarately incorrect and against what the source cited supported. Dan56 (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * What makes you think that "adding unsourced content" is a block able offense? Your example  of his edit was adding a couple songs.  There was no indication of deliberate incorrectness in your post to AIV. Jeepday (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Additional research shows the reference cited on Wikipedia, Cites Wikipedia as it's source. This text has been derived from Unpredictable (Jamie Foxx album) on Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0. So what are the actual sales of the record? Was the value of 2,000,000 actually incorrect? This is why it is always encouraged to check for references before assuming the worst.  So which one of us is going to remove the incorrect reference, find the actual value and include a reliable source? Jeepday (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This keeps getting better. per |RIAA which is the #1 reference where it says "US: 2× Platinum" Which by definition is 2,000,000.  So you want to block this person for what?  Seems like the thing for you to do is restore the edit by User:Gy20003, remove the reference currently supporting the 1,998,000 and apologize to the user. Jeepday (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * RIAA certifications are based on shipments to retailers, not sales. And I had warned him before about challengeable edits made without using an edit summary and WP:FIES, but he doesnt communicate in any form so I doubt he cares. Dan56 (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * So where is the reference that you like, that says how many sales there are? Where is the policy that says no sources is a blockable offense? Jeepday (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Are the italics for "that you like" supposed to imply something? Dan56 (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep, so is there any references better then wikimirror that you wanted to use as validation to block someone, you have a history of disagreeing with? We know you were wrong. We know the number 1,998,000 that you entered on the article is not support by WP:RS.  So are you going to fix the article? Jeepday (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * When did I cite one edit as validation to block? I'm citing a history of making unsourced changes. I looked at the source cited (granted I did not see that it was wikimirror) and reverted his edit to the revision prior. Neither of us knows the editor's intentions when he made the edit to Jamie Foxx discography, but since his previous unsourced changes warranted warnings until the final one, I requested a block, and it was denied. You're blowing this out of proportion. Dan56 (talk) 06:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * So it looks like Gy20003 was previously blocked 01:33, 9 December 2012 by 5 albert square after a request by Dan56  with this non vandal edit  used as the rational. Other then the first edit Dan56 warned him about I don't see any inappropriate edits. Of note the only thing wrong with the BLP article is the lack of reference as the change appears to be completely correct. (multiple references, not sure which are WP:RS).  Given that all accusations of vandalism on User talk:Gy20003 are by User:Dan56 and that on review none of the edits actually appear to be vandalism, this looks like a case of Harassment. I am going to drop a note at User talk:5 albert square. Maybe I am missing something. Jeepday (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Unexplained removal, unsourced additions w/change to cited number, unsourced addition, incorrect change to sourced content. Disregarding guidelines like citing sources after warnings on the editor's talk page and continuing to make edits without citing a source shows a disruptive pattern. How can I have a disagreement, let alone a history of, with the editor if he does not engage in any type of communication? All I did was post warnings, starting from level 1, and gave useful advice. You're delusional if you think I have the kind of ulterior motive described at WP:HOUND. His first block was a result of the edits he made to BLP articles and warned for here; as far as the "completely correct" change he made, the burden is on him to cite a source or explain with an edit summary (which I advised him to do long before the 1st block), not for me to assume good faith and check in detail (WP:FIES). Dan56 (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The point of this discusion is about the behavior of User:Dan56, the edits made by User:Gy20003 and reported as vandalism by Dan56 are not vandalism. "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.". Every edit Gy20003 made that I have reviewed in detail is supported by sources. Not including those sources is only problematic in cases of WP:BLP. The edits reported as vandalism and reverted are not edit waring. "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions". Gy20003 has not attempted to communicate with Dan56,(nor is the edit obligated to communicate). Gy20003 has not restored any reverted material. The actions of Dan56 appear to be Harassment Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons, as of the vandal warning placed on User talk:Gy20003 between 06:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC) and 14 December 2012 (UTC) covering 3 main space pages, the edit history of the articles show only one that Dan56 had previously edited  and two that Dan56 had not previously edit , indicating that probability that Dan56 is Harassment through the use of Special:Contributions/Gy20003.


 * So Dan56 you tell me, have you failed to understand the difference between vandalism and good faith edits; unfairly targeting Gy20003. Or have you embarked on a mission to hound Gy20003, because they will not communicate with you? In either case the behavior of Dan56 is inappropriate, needs to be discontinued, and if it should continue may lead to a block of Dan56. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

My two cents
I saw this block request when it went up, and I agree with Jeepday's decision. It's a bit of a judgment call, because this editor is pretty clearly disruptive and some of the edits, like the rounding off of numbers, do seem close to sneaky vandalism and his talk page is quite the list of warning messages. But, without really knowing what his intent was, we should assume good faith. Citing sources is not required. Obeying previous consensus is not required. Responding to warnings is not required. Bold editing, even misguided bold editing, is not vandalism. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 15:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I blocked the editor in the first instance because they were making edits to articles that in my opinion were contravening WP:BLP. The BLP policy specifically states that there is to be no original research and edits must be verifiable.  I looked back on the users edits and they have a history of adding unreferenced information about living persons to articles.  I googled the edits being added and could find nothing to support them, therefore to me, that is not verifiable.  The BLP policy states that if editors are found to continually add information without sources then they may be blocked.  As I found a number of edits that contravened WP:BLP and the user had not responded to warnings on his talk page I made the decision to block him.  I had a quick look over some of the edits the user has made since then and I cannot find that he is repeating this behaviour.--5 albert square (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

your close at VPP
There's an open RfC at Village_pump_(policy), in the middle of the discussion that you closed. Do you need to close that, too? Dicklyon (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't follow RfC's so am unable to address that issue. Jeepday (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research
Thanks for tagging this article for notability back in 2008. It's still tagged; you may want to take it to the Notability noticeboard or AfD to get it resolved. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Or you can take it to AfD. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

AIV
Why did you remove User:Shaykhbanarasowaisi from WP:AIV? he's still removing the speedy deletion tag from the autobiography. RNealK (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * At Revision as of 01:50, 16 February 2013 The SD template was still on the article, and had not been removed since MrX restored it at 00:11, 16 February 2013. Special:DeletedContributions/Shaykhbanarasowaisi shows the last edit to Shaykh Banaras Owaisi was  00:10, 16 February 2013. Edit history of the article showed many edits with mostly less than 5 minutes between them.  When the article was deleted at 05:05, 16 February 2013, the original author still had not returned to edit it. In short because, he was NOT "still removing the speedy deletion tag from the autobiography" Jeepday (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
~ TheGeneralUser  (talk)  12:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Restricted-use media list
An RfC that may interest you has been opened at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list, so please come and include your opinion. – P AINE E LLSWORTH  C LIMAX !  09:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Um?
When did this guy actually vandalize anything? (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 11:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Check the edit history of the deleted page Kelly Denis, removing deletion templates and recreating deleted pages. I have no opinion on the page deletion, but clearly has a one track mind on getting published on Wikipedia with no regard for the Wikipedia expectations. Jeepday (talk) 12:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but is that vandalism? No - it's a guy who doesn't get the concept of Wikipedia, hence my extended note on his talkpage that was there before your warning (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 12:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are going to supervise the edits and work to modify the behavior, that is great, but you need to take them off the WP:AIV page if you don't want them to get caught up in the vandalism game. Jeepday (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

removing spam
Thanks for doing that. I'm always instantly reverted the few times I've done it. I've asked for help at Editor assistance/Requests but I don't expect to get any. There's no support for the spam template but no one wants to deal with it. That template links to over 66 "Philosophy" articles!. And the purpose of them as Gregbard explains on his talk page it to organize wikipedia categories according to his chosen sources.


 * Excerpt from my request:

"I tried to discuss these templates with Gregbard on his talk page, my talk page User_talk:Star767, but he told me to 'desist'. He asked Vegaswikian his opinion who said: 'categories should not include references. I also believe that as I stated, categories are for article navigation and should not be used to provide reference sources, like this template does, in a category. That is something that belongs on a project page.' Gregbard responded: 'Much of my effort in organizing categories has been toward making them consistent with PhilPapers, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and Indiana Ontology Project, as provided in those links listed in Philosophy reference resources.'"

Category:WikiProject Philosophy templates contain numerous templates that control categorization one way or another, either by adding spam links or by controlling the organizations. Just one example: WikiProject Philosophy/Epistemology/Nav Many of these have dead links - he removed the one I point out on the template discussed on the Village Pump/Policy page.

Star767 (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you Administrator Jeepday for temporarily blocking Jenniepierce567. It will be appreciated my myself and the Wikipedian community. I only wanted her blocked because she was not listening to anyone and plus, I had most of the pages she edited on my Watchlist. Thank you. (WorldTraveller101 &#124; What is up? &#124; How do I help?) 12:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If she does it again try, to include some support that the edit(s) contain untrue information. The next block would likely be permanent and simple lack of references is generally not sufficient, you need to show that new content is false and no WP:RS can be found. Jeepday (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thank you. (WorldTraveller101 &#124; What is up? &#124; How do I help?) 13:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Your block of User:Jenniepierce567
Hello: you blocked with the rationale that this edit was a "fabrication". Not only did that edit remove false information earlier added by an IP, but I was easily able to verify the added information. I have since added a ref to the article. I ask that you either unblock Jenniepierce567 or find a legitimate block rationale; in any case, an apology is warranted for the false accusation. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I changed the block to expire with your request (23:04, 13 April 2013) so her block is now expired. I checked for references prior to blocking and did not find them. The user has multiple warning from multiple users about changing content without providing references or rationale. While I blocked for Vandalism which now appears to be incorrect, disruptive editing would still be an appropriate block in this users case.


 * A closer look at the edit history of O'Hare International Airport does imply on ongoing content dispute between Jenniepierce567 & WorldTraveller101, had I noticed this at the time I would likely have initiated a conversation rather then a block.


 * On Second Review
 * WorldTraveller101 - It is appropriate to check for references before making accusations of vandalism. You should have done so, and included such statements in your post to AIV, not everyone reading the posts there are as familiar with the topic as you are.


 * Jenniepierce567 - Your user page implies that you are user who is not familiar with or has little regard for Wikipedia expectations, You can improve this image by occasionally deleting content or archiving from your talk page. Increasing your use of edit summaries and including references while not required significantly improve the value of your contributions to Wikipedia.


 * Jeepday - Having seen the two posts from WorldTraveller101 at AIV against the same user, you should checked for and found the edit disputes between these two users and initiated a conversation rather then a block.


 * Orange Suede Sofa - Good catch and thank you for posting your concerns here.
 * Jeepday (talk) 10:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I requested to block her because she has done this for seven months. I could have included more of her disruptive edits, but there are so many, which do I choose? And now she's free to edit again? It is not time to open up a discussion, for she has been warned for seven months about this. So she isn't "unaware" of how Wikipedia works, I believe she just ignores them. Thanks. (WorldTraveller101 &#124; What is up? &#124; How do I help?) 12:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Disruptive editing and vandalism are separate types of edits. In the case of the edit on April 13, it was constructive. It added true information and removed false information. There is no requirement to included references, nor to include an edit summary. I see you have made attempts to communicate on her talk page, and I have seen some minor conversations between you two in edit summaries. Per WP:BURDEN it is appropriate to remove (or tag) information that is of questionable accuracy. At the same time, removing every edit that is added without a references would be considered disruptive editing. Vandalism is editing with intent to add inaccurate or inappropriate content. At second review, I am not seeing any vandalism. There will always be edits you think could be better and users who style and beliefs run counter to yours.  Jeepday (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Although this was two weeks ago, let me remind you guys that the user does not talk. He/she does not respond on any talk page or discussion and doesn't include very many edit summaries. Thanks guys. Oops?WorldTraveller101Follow my work? 13:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

User:115.248.130.148
Hello. I'm contacting you because I work with WP:ACC and noticed your block of IP address 115.248.130.148 (the IP was requesting an account to edit Wikipedia). There are several things I was concerned with when you blocked this user:
 * To start, the IP is shared, meaning is it shared by multiple individuals, and not only that, shared between non-English speaking users since it is coming from India (well some speak English, but it's not a primarily English-speaking country).
 * It was reported to AIV for vandalism after a final warning, however, the final warning was erroneous. It was issued warnings several days beforehand, so they were likely other users using the IP. Then it was final warned for an edit that was made ten hours earlier to Homeland (TV series) by User:Epeefleche. The edit ten hours earlier likely wasn't the same editor considering the next edits were edits attempting to be productive by editing India-related articles. The edits weren't very good, but again, these are primarily non-English users.
 * The user making the friendly edits never received a warning on their talk page, only a report to AIV (for some reason) for editing past a final warning ten hours earlier. They had probably read the talk page before they started editing, but they didn't get any other messages sent to them before the block.
 * Your block of the IP came in the middle of them trying to improve articles. Again, they didn't do very well, but they were not being malicious with the edits they were making at the time.
 * Most importantly, what brought me here was that you provided no block reason. Considering you blocked the IP for a year, I would think providing a reason would be necessary (in fact, it's probably required for all blocks unless super obvious).

I feel there was several lapses of judgment here on account of the erroneous AIV report, but I think this should be rectified, otherwise this could be a horrible case of WP:BITE. Your year-long block should probably be removed, or at the very least reduced to something like a month and a reason be provided this time. Lots of users are being tangled in with this block and they see no reason for being blocked at present, so I hope this is resolved soon. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  17:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've unblocked the IP; it's a large national ISP with dynamic users, the original user the block was intended for had already been replaced, and a year would have been too long in the first place. Please be especially careful in the case of dynamic IPs: blocks over a few days are almost never indicated and cause a great deal of needless harm.  In doubt, consult AN/I or a checkuser.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Shared IP's with a history of vandalism are often blocked for long periods, blocks for this IP were 1 week, 1 month, 3 months and my 1 year block. Jeepday (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Commons:DPLA
Project status report. Cheers, and thanks for the interest. Bdcousineau (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism only account
Hi. I'm a bit puzzled as to why you haven't blocked User:DanielWhitehouse10 and removed him from WP:AIV with the edit summary "remove one - no edits after final warning". As I understand it with vandalism only accounts you can block them without warning. He has created two hoax articles (Freya Whitehouse and Let's Get Cooking) and recreated the former after deletion, for which he had been warned. How many more hoaxes does he need to create until I can report him again? Jevansen (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The goal is not to block users, the goal is to change behavior. There are no communications on User talk:DanielWhitehouse10 that attempt to change the behavior. The user meets, #1 below, but 2 is not evident and it is to late for 3. Jeepday (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Important! Please remember the following:


 * 1) The edits of the reported user must be obvious vandalism or obvious spam.
 * 2) The user must have been given enough warnings to stop their disruptive behavior.
 * 3) The warnings must have been given recently and the users must be active now, especially for unregistered users.
 * 4) Requests for further sanctions against a blocked user (e.g., talk page, e-mail blocks) should go to AN/I, as a bot automatically removes accounts here that are blocked.

Sorry
Sorry that I reverted your vandalism report. I don't know how I did it. Again sorry. Bevo74 (talk) 06:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No worries, actually it was a comment on the talk page and was easily fixed. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of The Monsters in the Morning for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Monsters in the Morning 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/The Monsters in the Morning (2nd nomination) 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. Levdr1 lp /  talk  12:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

"Spamming"
I was merely (truly!) trying to generate additional discussion after the relist to avoid another "no consensus" at the AFD nom. The only editors I contacted were registered (and not bots); and made at least one non-minor edit to the article as logged by this website If as an administrator you really think I was "spamming" and/or violated WP:CAN, I will withdraw my nomination. Levdr1 lp /  talk  22:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct, I will post an apology and retraction. I missed my old edit. Jeepday (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I just counted the number of editors I contacted, and it's about 30 (!!!!).  I honestly lost track of how many I contacted as I was doing it, so if you still think this 2nd nom. is somehow tainted, I will still withdraw it.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  23:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No worries. Jeepday (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Email address
Hi, I was wondering if perhaps there was an email address that I could contact you via. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.175.161.23 (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You can email me with this link Jeepday (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Your block of 129.217.132.38
You beat me to it, but do you routinely check WHOIS? That IP is registered to Technische Universitaet Dortmund - oddly enough, I sometimes find when WHOIS tells me nothing Geolocate does. Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't usually check WHOIS. If they are schools with a history of problems they usually have already achieved the appropriate header template. Jeepday (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I wish that was the case more often. Dougweller (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Great American Wiknic 2014 - Pittsburgh
I'd like to invite you to add a Pittsburgh event for the Great American Wiknic. This year we're aiming to coalesce nationally around July 6, but any date that is convenient to your local community works as well. And don't be shy about putting something preliminary on the national Wiknic page, it all helps!--Pharos (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you update the from side of the Pittsburgh meetup page, so that we can properly schedule this on the national WP:Wiknic page?--Pharos (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
--82.136.210.153 (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Language on Vacation: An Olio of Orthographical Oddities
Hello, Jim. The article Language on Vacation: An Olio of Orthographical Oddities has been recently relisted for deletion due to lack of participation. As far as I can tell, you're the only person outside the present AfD ever to have expressed an opinion on the notability of this book. Could I therefore suggest that you make a contribution to the AfD indicating whether you believe the article now meets our core content criteria? (Note that since the AfD started the article has been completely rewritten with references; nothing remains of the original.) —Psychonaut (talk) 07:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
--Pharos (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

 * I have not been very active on Wikipedia recently. Please take a look at my contributions to see if I am really one of the people you would like to work with. If so leave me a message here, or use the email this user link to contact me. Jeepday (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * }
 * }


 * Hi, Jim! I've looked at your contributions and Wiki says you've had over 4,000 edits. As far as our study concerns, it isn't about how frequently active you are, but how adept you are in utilizing Wikipedia. I would like to say that you are a good fit for the study. Could you please send me an email at hcicmuresearch@gmail.com or leave your email here? I could not get Wiki email working. User:JMyraYeung (talk) 128.237.207.17 (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC) (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Hucki/Dungeon Legends


A tag has been placed on User talk:Hucki/Dungeon Legends, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)