User talk:KoyaanisQatsi

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

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


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

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

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

Central Asia
WikiProject Central Asia has finally been created. Would you care to join us? Aelfthrytha 22:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote whore
Quote whore has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt this term might not be significant enough for an article. Please review Avoid neologisms for the relevant guidelines. If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so. Remember, however, that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so articles about the meanings and usages of terms are not appropriate either.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the "prod" notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod notice, the deletion process will stop, but if an editor is still not satisfied that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may be sent to Articles for deletion for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nomination of -ism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article -ism 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/-ism & 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. Cnilep (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Action film


The article Action film has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * This is either a personal list, in which case it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, or it's a copyright violation of whoever's list this is, in which case it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.

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. Pichpich (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Historical anniversaries/January 26 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Historical anniversaries/January 26. Since you had some involvement with the Historical anniversaries/January 26 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Economy of Réunion for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Economy of Réunion 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/Economy of Réunion 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. Shaded0 (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

"Palmyra Atoll/Transportation" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Palmyra Atoll/Transportation. Since you had some involvement with the Palmyra Atoll/Transportation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

"Larrys Text/Epistemology" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Larrys Text/Epistemology and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Economy of Iran
Economy of Iran has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Femke (alt) (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for History of Singapore
History of Singapore has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Malawi
Malawi has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Dan the Animator 07:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)