User talk:Raymondwinn

Dated cleanup tags
Hi, thanks for your message, SmackBot does not generally add tags, but merely dates those that are already there. Regards,

Note that the person who added the tags had an edit summary of "cn; completed tagging of redlinks in the G section of the page; many more sources are needed for many other claims)" Rich Farmbrough, 12:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Dacia
Cool work on Moesia! Thanks for help! I've been working to set up the WikiProject Dacia to organize better the articles about Dacia and improve their quality. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Maybe you find it interesting and wish to join. Thanks and best regards! --Codrin.B (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!
 Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia! Hey Bzuk  (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Jim Parsons
Hi, I noticed your two edits to the Jim Parsons article. I wanted to revert them in part, but it would be a fair amount of work. I was therefore tempted to revert them completely, but I hated to destroy some of the "good" changes you made. I have two main problems with what you did. First, in an effort to make the date formatting consistent, you changed it to British style, despite the fact it is an American actor. See WP:STRONGNAT. Second, you removed access dates completely from some cites - I couldn't figure out why. I could easily go back in and make the dates American-style, but that wouldn't restore the access dates.

Can you help or at least discuss these issues? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

List of counties in Utah
I noticed the changes you made. As a fellow Wikignome and Utahn, I am grateful for somebody taking interest in Utah articles. There are not many of us around here. Unfortunately, I've been more busy being a Wikignome lately than working on articles. Bgwhite (talk) 04:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Never change the formatting of the dates that are already used in the article, please see WP:DATERET. The dates were in standard American format.  Changing to European is not necessary.
 * 2) Removal of the wikilinks in the table were not necessary. Wikilinks in tables follow a different format than in an article, especially a sorted table.
 * 3) Not sure if you are aware, but there is a gold star at the top-right corner of the page. This means the article is a featured list (FL), meaning the article has undergone an exhaustive review.  Generally, but not always, formatting should not change.  However, standards due to change over time.
 * 4) Adding rank in the area is also not necessary as the table is already can be sorted and it deviates from standard U.S. County format. See WikiProject U.S. counties/county lists for standard format.  As above, standards due change.  Usually, when their are similar FLs, the last list to undergo review sets what the standard becomes.  Florida was the last list to undergo review with Utah right before it.

Adding missing
==

Wow, you were quick at adding the ==! I think it was three minutes since I added the sections90.206.27.56 (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Broderick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Broderick (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited NACA Technical Note No. 842, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Electrodeposition (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright NACA reports
Hi, I saw you copypasted parts of old NACA reports in a series of articles. Apart from the notability of these reports, I am having serious doubts about the possibility of copyright infringements. How about it? Regards, Crowsnest (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No copyright problem: These are US government reports and are therefore in the public domain. This issue has been long-settled in Wikipedia. Thanks for asking.--Raymondwinn (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Raymondwinn, in itself the text is in the public domain, but still a proper reference (to authors and NACA) telling that you copypasted is needed, similar like the one for the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica:
 * (see e.g. the bottom of History of fluid mechanics). Also similar to when people use parts of Wikipedia: you still need to do the proper attribution to the authors (like when you use the Print/Export --> Download as PDF, for a mainspace article; at the bottom of the generated PDF-file). Best regards, Crowsnest (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: See also Copy-paste. -- Crowsnest (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: See also Copy-paste. -- Crowsnest (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of NACA Report No. 133


The article NACA Report No. 133 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Essay

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. → Σ  τ  c. 20:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of NACA Report No. 134


The article NACA Report No. 134 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Dubious notability; essay.

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. bobrayner (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of NACA Report No. 133 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NACA Report No. 133 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/NACA Report No. 133 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. bobrayner (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

hi
I was looking at the 2 articles mentioned above.

If you plan to source them it might be a better idea to put them in your userspace until they are finished. Unfinished articles (without sources) are not likely to survive very long.

There is also this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pending_AfC_submissions

It is ok to just write an article in main space of course but it does have to be finished I'm afraid. Or people will complaint about it and/or delete it which is a waste of your effort.

Good luck,

84.106.26.81 (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing AfD template
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with NACA Report No. 133. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it. Snotbot  t &bull; c &raquo;  21:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * NACA Report No. 105 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Immelmann


 * NACA Technical Note No. 751 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Flutter


 * NACA Technical Note No. 960 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Tab

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

NACA reports, and such
Hi,
 * Removing an AfD tag with the edit summary "created page" is pretty bad. Please don't do stuff like that.
 * There's some discussion over at this AfD page. It might lead to more of your NACA articles being deleted. Your comments would be appreciated. bobrayner (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for your help with Kyoto Protocol--Morel (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

French corvette Géographe
I noticed you recently added a reference to the article including Template:E without any arguments. On the English Wikipedia, this will not generate a superscript e (though one can accomplish the same using  tags). I would change the formatting myself, but I'm not entirely sure whether the date in question is part of the name of the reference (i.e. should be maintained in French with the superscript e) or merely description (i.e. can be translated to English).99.23.82.172 (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Just fixing the sup to display.99.23.82.172 (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of NACA Report No. 787


The article NACA Report No. 787 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Word for word unattributed copy of passages in the original source. Very detailed and technical description, too specialized for a general encyclopedia. No need to preserve on a Wikimedia project since the original owner of the text is already doing that.

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Wtshymanski (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of NACA Report No. 761 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NACA Report No. 761 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/NACA Report No. 761 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 template from the top of the article. Wtshymanski (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of NACA Report No. 105‎


The article NACA Report No. 105‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

I have also nominated at the other NACA Reports and Technical Reports. These are not notable documents. JMcC (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

NACA reports
Ok the reports are interesting to technical minded people like me but have little value for the average reader. But there would be room for a list or table with a precis of the contents of the reports, labelled something like; NACA reports or List of NACA reports. Please don't let your hard work go to waste!!Petebutt (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of NACA Technical Note No. 1629 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NACA Technical Note No. 1629 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/NACA Technical Note No. 1629 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 template from the top of the article. Coretheapple (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I recently edited your page on Morten P. Meldal for a Chemistry project and I hope you approve of the changes! Manuelpapale122 (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry
To you and yours FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
 Dear, HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wasatch Front Wicnic 2016
Please join the discussion regarding a Wasatch Front Wicnic for 2016. We'd love to have you come. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 23:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

In some benign wp:CANVASSING
Community input is politely requested for Jimbo's tkpg with regard ur expertise in gen. notability per wp:GNG & applicabilities of eg wp:PROF, wp:AUTH, etc. w/in AfD's ... here: User talk:Jimbo Wales.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Whistle (decontamination solution)


The article Whistle (decontamination solution) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of 'This article meets criteria A and B because...' and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of NACA Report No. 742 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NACA Report No. 742 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/NACA Report No. 742 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Rogermx (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of NACA Report No. 106


The article NACA Report No. 106 has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fails WP:NOTJOURNAL and WP:GNG. No claims of notability"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Rogermx (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of NACA Report No. 106 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NACA Report No. 106 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/NACA Report No. 106 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.  DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of NACA Report No. 107


The article NACA Report No. 107 has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of notability either today or in 1921. No significant coverage"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Rogermx (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of NACA Technical Note No. 1341


The article NACA Technical Note No. 1341 has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Rogermx (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of NACA Technical Note No. 1341 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NACA Technical Note No. 1341 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/NACA Technical Note No. 1341 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Rogermx (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Violet Mathieson for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Violet Mathieson, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Violet Mathieson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Leonard Glasser for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Leonard Glasser 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/Leonard Glasser until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished. Suonii180 (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)