User talk:M656

Spam in Linguistic Agents Ltd.
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Linguistic Agents Ltd., by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Linguistic Agents Ltd. is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Linguistic Agents Ltd., please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 18:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the article should be deleted, then please place  on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Computerworld Horizon Awards
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Computerworld Horizon Awards, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * non notable awards

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Stormbay (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of FolderPlay


The article FolderPlay has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Notability doubtful

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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Schuhpuppe (talk) 09:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of FolderPlay
A tag has been placed on FolderPlay requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Schuhpuppe (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * FolderPlay appears to me to be web content, which is included in the criterion I used when deleting it. You're correct in saying that it wasn't a copyright violation; however, because it passed another speedy criterion, I was still allowed to delete it.  Please note that the hangon tag is not a prohibition on speedy deletion: it simply says "please wait until I can leave a note on the talk page to explain why it shouldn't be deleted."  You left a message at the talk page, so I assumed that you'd given your best argument against its deletion, and I don't believe that what you wrote was a good enough reason to avoid deletion.  If you still disagree, you're welcome to file a request for its undeletion at Deletion Review.  Nyttend (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read the criterion: a wide range of subjects may be deleted under A7 besides biographies. Nyttend (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on User Talk:Schuhpuppe, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Schuhpuppe (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of FolderPlay


The article FolderPlay has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * no indication of WP:notability. Unsourced

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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Folder Play
I've added some cleanup tags to the article, including one for notability. This is not a request for deletion, please do not remove it until you have actually added independent references that establish notability. Softpedia is not one such source as they don't require software they list to be widely used. --Schuhpuppe (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand that demonstration of notability should be improved. This is a work in progress. m656 (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you request the article to be Userfied (moved to a subpage of your user page where you can work on it and proof notability without it being deleted before you're finished) at Requests for undeletion. Regarding your other question, I've answered on my own talk page. --Schuhpuppe (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just seeing you've already requested a deletion review, so requesting undeletion if of course unnecessary. --Schuhpuppe (talk) 11:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just responding to the question you listed on my talkpage. The discussion you started will be closed by an uninvolved administrator after seven days, to allow everyone who may have an interest in the page to comment on the deletion review.  While so far the discussion is unanimous, the correct amount of time must be allowed to elapse before the page can be undeleted.  As I've commented on the process now, I am 'involved', and I'm afraid I'm not permitted to undelete it myself.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC).

Articles for deletion nomination of FolderPlay
I have nominated FolderPlay, 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/FolderPlay. 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. noq (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you have been making some more edits to try to improve the article. Unfortunately the links you added are not considered WP:reliable sources for showing WP:notability. The reliable sources and notability articles give guidelines on what sort of thing is required. noq (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:RabbiGinsburgh.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:RabbiGinsburgh.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. 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. 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 specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 13:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD
You seem not to be getting the message -- edits that are rejected by another editor should not be repeated without discussion and consensus on the article talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Ah -- now I get it -- you posted on the talk page but forgot to sign, and since my watchlist hides bot edits, I didn't see it because the most recent edit there was by a bot. Still, it's a matter of WP:CONSENSUS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition to your difficulties with WP:3RR, you have now run afoul of WP:NLT. I strongly suggest that you strike your comments there immediately (and revert the edit).  You can do this with and < /s >, like this (omitting the spaces).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Report on edit-warring here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Please agree to stop warring on this article
Per the WP:Edit warring policy, you may be blocked unless you agree to stop reverting. I have satisfied myself that the BLP concern is being sufficiently addressed. The things that you consider BLP violations are not, in fact, enough to count as exceptions to the 3RR policy, since they come from a book published by a university press. If you will promise to take a break from editing this article for seven days, you may be able to avoid a block. Please reply at WP:AN3. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Linguistic Agents Ltd.


A tag has been placed on Linguistic Agents Ltd. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 deleted 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)