User talk:Quelcrime

Speedy deletion of Mark Edward Lewis
A tag has been placed on Mark Edward Lewis 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 person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

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. Arthur 23:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you look at User_talk:Arthurrh you'll see he has a habit of trying to get new articles deleted as soon as they're up. Luckily there's usually a more reasonable person around to remove his inappropriate tags before long.Quelcrime (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

John Day vs. John Daye disambiguation page.
Hi there, Quelcrime. I have started a section of the talk page of Talk:John Day about whether or not both of these spellings should be listed on the same page and I think it would be great if you responded there....though it could be that only you and I have an opinion. -Gwguffey (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I responded on the John Day talk page and made some adjustments, though upon rereading your comment, I may have misread your thoughts. If you feel strongly that things should be set up differently than they are now (or should go back to the way they were), please change them and I won't object. -Gwguffey (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It has been proposed that this articles be remerged. You should swing by Talk:John Daye and comment.  Best wishes.  -Gwguffey (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Revisited
Hi, Quelcrime. I hope you have been well since we last crossed paths. I was pruning my watchlist and saw our old friend John Day(e). A few months have passed since the conversation was opened and no one else has commented. Additionally, my thoughts on this have changed upon my current pondering of this topic. So, I no longer have any issues with merging the two pages and will adjust my commentary on the talk page to reflect that. Be well. -- Gwguffey (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems with File:LittleRedBook.jpg
Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:LittleRedBook.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:LittleRedBook.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:LittleRedBook.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:File:LittleRedBook.jpg and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:File:LittleRedBook.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:File:LittleRedBook.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you.

The little red book is not yet in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD: Sharara
Hello. I suggested at Articles for deletion/Sharara that, per User:Pablomismo, encyclopedia users searching for either Attia Sharara or Shararat might come upon Sharara. I don't speak Urdu or Arabic, and I don't know whether Pablomismo does either, so I'm not sure whether I'm speaking out of my hat. Do you you happen to speak either language, or know of another editor who does and who we might ask to weigh in at the AfD? Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

identify
"identify" has usages that are transitive and intransitive. The construction you modified was not wrong. I will not revert it because there is also nothing wrong with your addition, but "identify" does have plenty of intransitive usages, and that was one of them. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)