User talk:Neelix/Archive 23

Today's featured article/June 1, 2015
Hey, I made another change to the text ... correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see in the article that Nimoy talks about a strained relationship with the cast in the film, so I went with "Shatner's strained relationship with some of the cast members". Do you see anything else I should change? - Dank (push to talk) 23:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your improvements, Dan! I made a minor tweak, and I think the blurb is now good to go. Neelix (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. "on the set of Star Trek": Do you know if he meant TOS, or the films too? - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think he distinguishes; it was roughly the same group of cast members in both TOS and the films, and the conflict began in TOS and continued on past the films right up to the day of the making of Mind Meld. Neelix (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, for the broader conflict, "on the set" will do. - Dank (push to talk) 02:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks good today, precious  again, - before my next FAC (but nothing planned right now) I will ask you about image licensing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello from the team at Featured article review!


We are preparing to take a closer look at Featured articles promoted in 2004–2010 that may need a review. We started with a script-compiled list of older FAs that have not had a recent formal review. The next step is to prune the list by removing articles that are still actively maintained, up-to-date, and believed to meet current standards. We know that many of you personally maintain articles that you nominated, so we'd appreciate your help in winnowing the list where appropriate.

Please take a look at the sandbox list, check over the FAs listed by your name, and indicate on the sandbox talk page your assessment of their current status. Likewise, if you have taken on the maintenance of any listed FAs that were originally nominated by a departed editor, please indicate their status. BLPs should be given especially careful consideration.

Thanks for your help! Maralia (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Wrong-doer listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wrong-doer. Since you had some involvement with the Wrong-doer redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Huge shakeup in the world of Tintin
Hi Neelix, hope you are well. Interesting news about the Hergé Foundation (Moulinsart) came out yesterday. Read the section "Rights issue" in that article. This is bad news for Nick and Fanny Rodwell (whom the Tintin community has never much liked). I will keep watching for further developments. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow! Thanks for sharing, Prhartcom! I wonder how this will affect the possible sequel to the 2011 film. Neelix (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Good question, and I had wondered the same thing. Come to think of it, I believe the American film company that made the first one must already own the rights to the next two Tintin films. But the best part of this news is the schadenfreude the Tintin community must feel now about Nick Rodwell (it would be difficult to write about him in the neutral voice). Prhartcom (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Today's featured article/June 12, 2015
Hi, I want to make sure I didn't give the wrong impression before. I think it would be great if we can dig up images we can use, and I'm glad you're looking around. But I know very little about what will fly with the Wikipedia community ... Crisco knows a lot. So ... keep looking, but also keep running ideas by Crisco. - Dank (push to talk) 00:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There was previously a fairly strong consensus against running signatures. While we're on the subject of images, could you please vet the copyright status of the images you add? File:Astato.JPG, which you added to the blurb for Astatine, was a) not actually of the element itself and b) a copyvio. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for contacting me on this subject, Dan. I will try to continue looking for appropriate images for TFA. I hadn't realized that there was a consensus against using signatures with TFAs, Chris; thank you for letting me know. I will attempt to be more discerning in my image recommendations in the future. As for the Astatine blurb, what do you think of File:Astatine.svg? I would also be grateful for your thoughts on the image I recommended for the Blue's Clues TFA here. Neelix (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Astatine periodical table image itself is particularly useful. It doesn't tell anything about the element itself that's not already in the text. There's a reason, after all, it's not used in the article. As for File:Steve Burns.jpg... I'm concerned about the implications of depicting him in the context of a children's show while holding a can of beer. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you responding so quickly, Chris. The beer can could easily be cropped out of the image of Burns. Would you find the image acceptable then? Neelix (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That would, presumably, be acceptable. I'm not 100% happy, but such an image would address both the concerns I raised. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the approval, Chris! I have cropped the image and added it to the Blue's Clues TFA blurb. As for the Astatine blurb, how about File:Electron shell 085 astatine.png or File:Astatine-3D-vdW.svg?

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
 The Wikipedia Library Call for Volunteers

 The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:
 * Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
 * Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
 * Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
 * Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.

Sign up to help here :)  Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Today's featured article/June 30, 2015
I don't follow; wasn't that the image Crisco chose? It seems pretty tame to me. - Dank (push to talk) 01:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't consider what little nudity there is in that image to be objectionable (and we have had nudes on the MP, numerous times, including The Pearl and the Wave, Olympia, La maja desnuda, and the Rokeby Venus; it's sexual nudity that is usually objected to). However, Neelix's cover does show up better at 100 px, so I don't mind this new image - assuming it is free. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * According to the discussion on the article's talk page, all of the covers in the second run are in the public domain. I'm glad you like the new image. Neelix (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for showing me that discussion. Yeah, the image looks good. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Today's featured article/June 13, 2015
Neelix, we've worked together for long enough that I don't think it's out of line to ask that you make any edits before TFA day, not on TFA day. I reverted because I don't agree on either point. The comment has a "parenthetical" feel to it, and a good way to clue readers to that is to use parentheses. And later in the article, I see "the viewer has no way to know who Brad is" ... if we don't know anything about him, then how do we know he's a hero? In a related article, it's made clearer that we don't know he's a hero. I already checked this out before TFA day. - Dank (push to talk) 16:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Royals
Wedding of Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland, and Sofia Hellqvist.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant
Hi Neelix,

You'er welcome. I enjoy copy-editing. You wrote me about my copy edits of the Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant article. I have left you a message on the article's talk page here in hopes that my answers would help you understand why I did what I did. Please feel free to respond there if you are still interested in the development of the article.

Nick Beeson (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Christian Realism page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=667110234 your edit] caused a wikilink error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F667110234%7CChristian Realism%5D%5D Ask for help])

Your GA nomination of Sisters at Heart
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sisters at Heart you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BenLinus1214 -- BenLinus1214 (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Call of Duty characters for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Call of Duty characters 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 Call of Duty characters 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. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sisters at Heart
The article Sisters at Heart you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sisters at Heart for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BenLinus1214 -- BenLinus1214 (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

GOCE Request: Jesus for America
I just completed your GOCE request for Jesus for President to be copyedited. You should be good to go for your GA nomination. Hampton11235 (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Floweredy listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Floweredy. Since you had some involvement with the Floweredy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Margalla Electronics
Hi there. I'm curious about your decline of the PROD of this article due to the fact that a speedy deletion has previously been declined. Since the threshold for an A7 deletion is significantly higher than the subject simply not being notable, I've never heard of a previous A7 decline being a reason that an article cannot be PRODed. In fact, I've often seen editors advised to take an article to AFD or PROD it when an A7 is declined. I've reread WP:PROD and I don't see anywhere that a previous declined speedy deletion precludes PROD. Obviously, you can contest or decline the PROD for any reason whatsoever and I'm not looking to argue that, I'm just curious if your only reason for declining the PROD was a policy that I can't seem to find. I'd like to make sure I'm on the right page in the future. Either way, I've gone ahead and taken the article to AFD instead. Cheers, Nick&#8288;—&#8288;Contact/Contribs 04:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Additionally, WP:PROD#6 states "A rejected speedy candidate is still eligible for proposed deletion, but a rejected AfD candidate is not." --Nick&#8288;—&#8288;Contact/Contribs 04:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know about that note in the policy, Nick! I hadn't seen that there before, and had previously been under the impression that the opposite was the case. I'll keep that in mind in the future. I'm sorry for unnecessarily complicating the deletion of this article. Neelix (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: Nguyễn Văn An
Hi Neelix,

Thanks for your message. I don't think that copyright issue is a matter there, I never considered this when I did the revision. What I was thinking when I did so is whether the person shown in the picture that I removed and the person introduced in the article above are the same person. I was thinking that the evidence were in favour of my revision: either from a look at their appearances and the career history of An (born 1937, the same below. Nguyễn Văn An should be referred as An according to Vietnamese customs).

First, As given by Wikipedia and the CV given by the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV), An was born in 1937. Hence by 1967 An should be 30 years old (it shouldn't be wrong). But what I see in the picture I remove is a man who seems to be in his middle or late years. Also to compare the picture above and the official portrait of Nguyen Van An by the CPV(shot in about year 2001), the appearance doesn't look alike.

Secondly, from here, what I get is the "Mr. Nguyen Van An at the lower house", and it was shot by the Dutch charges d'affaire in South Vietnam. North Vietnam never recognise South Vietnam, and I think North Vietnamese would have a chance to be in South Vietnam only if they joined the Vietcong guerilla. According to the official biography by CPV, An finished his study in Donetsk in 1967, then transferred to Hanoi to work in a working site for a electricity supplier. If so, is it possible for An to appear in South Vietnam? How come he is the man in the picture I removed?

Last point. The source of that picture doesn't provided adequate information on the tones of the name the person shown in the picture (not a surprise). Vietnamese is a tonal language, thus it is possible that their names are the same if all diacritics are removed, but different if diacritics are added.

Hope you will understand my rationale on this, though it may just be rebutted as it's just my original research.--春卷柯南 (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:William Etty
Do you have any objection if I remove William Etty, which you've just created? Etty painted over 800 works, of which we only currently have articles on ten. Keeping this template will either give extreme undue weight to those few paintings on which I happen to have written articles (which are by no means his most significant), or create a huge and unsightly sea of redlinks which are unlikely ever to be filled. – iridescent  20:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You've been doing some amazing work on articles related to Etty paintings lately! I was amazed to find that you were able to get Preparing for a Fancy Dress Ball approved for featured status only fifteen days after creating the article; I normally take months to go from creating an article to getting it featured. I think it important for there to be a navbox on these articles, and that the undue weight is present whether the navbox exists or no; the fact that we have articles about these particular paintings is what gives them the undue weight, not the fact that we have linked the articles together. Nonetheless, I will not object if you wish to add red links to the navbox. How many of the 800+ paintings are notable enough to receive Wikipedia articles? Neelix (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I honestly can't see an advantage to a navbox that doesn't outweigh the disadvantage of making people think "these are his most significant works since they're the only ones Wikipedia's highlighting"; these are being written with the specific aim of highlighting the re-opening of the York Art Gallery and thus focusing on works with some relevance to that (some, like The Wrestlers, weren't even exhibited in his lifetime; equally, some of his most significant works are hidden away in private collections and can't make viable articles since I don't see a point in writing articles on anything for which we can't get an image). I wouldn't object to an Otherarticles template, which makes it clearer that "these are the ones on which Wikipedia happens to have articles".


 * In terms of numbers, of the ones I could realistically bring up to FA level that don't yet exist, as things stand there are nine definites and three possibles (list here; there are 14 on the list but I've done five of them since I made the list). In terms of articles on which I have enough to bring up to "at-least-adequate" level (roughly the level of Portrait of Mlle Rachel or a bit longer, say) and which are significant enough to justify stand-alone articles, there are around 40, assuming I lump all the works which are effectively copies or pastiches of other works into a single very long Copies made by William Etty of works by other artists article rather than treating them seperately.


 * I'd be reluctant to introduce redlinks (and am intentionally not doing so on the articles as I write them). It encourages other people to create stubs; normally that would be a good thing, but in this case it means obliterating someone else's work when I get round to writing it (as has already happened on Youth and Pleasure and is about to happen on William Etty, and also causes WP:CITEVAR issues since there are obvious advantages to all the articles using the same citation style, but one can't change the citation style on an existing article. – iridescent  21:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I can understand your reasons for wanting to be the first editor to create the other articles relating to Etty's paintings. Why not create stubs for each with a single citation? That way, your chosen citation variation will have priority in each. The number of articles you mention sounds manageable for a navbox. Neelix (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It would be grossly hypocritical of me to create a batch of stubs, given that I've spent the last decade arguing that Wikipedia should have a minimum article size and stubs should be deleted en masse. On reflection I think I'll just ignore the navbox completely, and let other people add it to articles if they really feel it's necessary; this is such an obscure corner of the 'pedia that it's really not worth losing sleep over. – iridescent  23:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

JC's Girls
I finally got round to looking at this, and for various reasons I don't think it's an article I want to review. Fell free to ping me next time you have an FAC up though, and good luck with this one Jimfbleak - talk to me?  12:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Neelix, I just noticed it was promoted, congratulations! And I see that it will be on the main page soon! What a trial it was, I imagine, but you kept your head as always and persevered. Best wishes, Prhartcom (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Congrats on the article's promotion to featured status, Neelix! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

COI Edit Request
Hello again Neelix!

Thank you again for your earlier assistance and guidance on editing Belden (electronics company). I have since submitted another edit and was hoping you wouldn't mind reviewing due to a COI.

I appreciate any help you're able to offer! Thanks, MikefromStanding (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Neelix. I wanted to follow-up on this request and see if it is something you wouldn't mind assisting with. Thank you for your time and consideration in advance.

Best, MikefromStanding (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC).

John Collier
Hi, to my understanding, there's no need to move John Collier (painter) to John Collier (Pre-Raphaelite painter) when there's no other artist known primarily as a painter. Correct me if I'm wrong, but WP:NC says a title should be "no longer than necessary" to identify a subject and distinguish itself from other subjects. So adding "Pre-Raphaelite" seems to a redundant extra descriptor. It would only make sense to disambiguate it like that if there were multiple people with that name known primarily for painting, but there is not. John Collier (caricaturist) might have done some illustrations in paintings, but he's not primarily known as a painter. Paintings seem to be just one format amongst others that he may have done his illustrations, but he's described by the Oxford DNB as a satirist and caricaturist, not a painter. Spellcast (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for contacting me on this issue, Spellcast! Considering that the main image on the John Collier (caricaturist) article is a painting by Collier, I would think that his activities as a painter are important. I agree that the title should be no longer than necessary, but I think the additional disambiguation is necessary in this case. You are certainly welcome to start a move discussion if you disagree; I would be glad to bow to consensus if the community generally agrees with your assertion. Neelix (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 12
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 12, May-June 2015 by, , ,

 Read the full newsletter The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * New donations - Taylor & Francis, Science, and three new French-language resources
 * Expansion into new languages, including French, Finnish, Turkish, and Farsi
 * Spotlight: New partners for the Visiting Scholar program
 * American Library Association Annual meeting in San Francisco

Nomination for deletion of Template:Andrew Kooman
Template:Andrew Kooman has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Moves of articles
I see that you had moved some Chile articles earlier, they've been moved elsewhere by Tobias Conradi, see this discussion at AN. As you seem to have an understanding of the Chile articles, pinging you to see if you can help with that part of the cleanup. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invitation, Spiff! Unfortunately, I don't think I'm going to be much use to you; I don't have much familiarity with Chile, and any past page moves I was involved with were probably just part of general article title standardization. I hope the cleanup goes well! Neelix (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, he referred to your "unilateral move" in many of the moves he did last month, so I had assumed you had some background. Unfortunately, I've only handled his behavior on the India related moves in the past, so I'm a bit lacking in context on a lot of these. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jesus for President
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jesus for President you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wugapodes -- Wugapodes (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jesus for President
The article Jesus for President you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jesus for President for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wugapodes -- Wugapodes (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Palabras listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Palabras. Since you had some involvement with the Palabras redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Palabra listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Palabra. Since you had some involvement with the Palabra redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Tucks in listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tucks in. Since you had some involvement with the Tucks in redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Tucking in listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tucking in. Since you had some involvement with the Tucking in redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Tucked in listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tucked in. Since you had some involvement with the Tucked in redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Tuck-in listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tuck-in. Since you had some involvement with the Tuck-in redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Tuck in listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tuck in. Since you had some involvement with the Tuck in redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Tucking in (parenting) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tucking in (parenting). Since you had some involvement with the Tucking in (parenting) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Waggish
Hello Neelix,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Waggish for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

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. Mr RD (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Waggish


A tag has been placed on Waggish requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not 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.

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 "Click here to 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. Cahk (talk) 09:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Waggish


A tag has been placed on Waggish requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not 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.

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 "Click here to 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. Cahk (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Accost
Hello, Neelix. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Accost, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) edit the page
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 07:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Credibly
Hello Neelix,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Credibly for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

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. TheLongTone (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Let the Right One In (franchise)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Let the Right One In (franchise), Neelix!

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

"good article"

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

Learn more about page curation.

Superman in film
I′ve tried to extract part about the 1978 series of the article into a new one like you did it with the 1989 Batman series before. But a user returned it into the old, confusing version because it is a featured article from 2007 (when the whole new universe wasn′t rudimentary planed). Can you help me to exclude it by dicussing it here? --Wikiolo (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

"Vandalism"
Hi I would like to notify you that I was not abusing the article of JC Girls, I was just adding minor edits which could have been corrections. Thank you for understanding. 173.180.3.128 (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

JC Girls
Why should not Sophia Lynn be called an actress?Is this the latest fashion in the Ministry of Truth?--Catlemur (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think having a rather longish film career, as can be seen here, might be considered sufficient grounds to be called an actress. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no single sentence in the gender neutrality guidelines supporting your opinion.None of the people in question have stated that they prefer masculine pronouns.Even the separate articles for the people in question call them actresses.I await an adequate response on this very page.

P.S.The vandalism warnings for 173.180.3.128 were uncalled for to say the least.--Catlemur (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Actor" is the gender-neutral profession term, and is neither a masculine term nor a pronoun. Wikipedia's guidelines on gender-neutral language state that we should "use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." The gender-neutral "actor" can be used in this context with clarity and precision. The people in question have not stated anything about their preferences on this point, so I don't think that line of argument is relevant. Please see Actor for additional discussion of the gender neutrality of the word "actor" and the history of its use. Neelix (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Chinese translation
Re:
 * Thanks for your kind words, I try to do my best, and hope someday my work will be appreciate like here in Chinese wikipedia.--Jarodalien (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Frigs listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Frigs. Since you had some involvement with the Frigs redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Fuggin' listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fuggin&. Since you had some involvement with the Fuggin' redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 05:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Chrissakes listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chrissakes. Since you had some involvement with the Chrissakes redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 05:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Danging listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Danging. Since you had some involvement with the Danging redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)