User talk:Reswobslc

Archives: Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Please start new topics below

Lucky 6.9
I reviewed your revisions. I would like to suggest that you start a new RFAR with them since the comments and votes don't really apply any more. Though I cannot speak for the committee, I myself would be particularly interested in reviewing any evidence of personal attacks or other civility violations.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Strawman Sockpuppet ad.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Strawman Sockpuppet ad.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCN
There is new information about this username that is relevant to the position you took in this debate, you may wish to review it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Having gone to the trouble of typing this...
Well, bitch is a "derogatory term for a woman" per the 1st sentence of the article, and "in heat" is an explicit reproductive reference specifically forbidden as a username by Wikipedia's username policy. Now, care to explain how "Christian" is either of these two? Reswobslc 06:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a nice straw man. The assumption that "bitch" is being used in that context is no more valid than the assumption that "Christian" is being used to refer to people of the Christian faith.  Both "bitch" and "in heat" (which also can be used in an entirely inoffensive manner) certainly are forbidden by our username policy, and that's my point; they carry strong offensive connotations, just as "dirty Christian" and its derivatives do (irrespective of the user's intentions).  —David Levy 07:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your opinion. The user is now blocked, the issue is moot, and we're each entitled to our own diverse opinions. Reswobslc 08:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Salvia divinorum article Media stories links
I think your list of media stories is just fine, and are not only not excessive, but highly relevant. They are essentially references for each of the claims made for each individual state, and so they're almost mandatory. I wouldn't worry about disclaiming the quantity of links you have. The more the better. In fact it would probably make them more valuable to include the US state for each one (for the US) so that it mimics the US state list (whether done with a heading, or simply perhaps the name of the state as the first word of each link, as in... -Reswobslc 21:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Utah, Duane Cardall, KSL (link)...

---

Thanks. I've followed the format given for an article in the Harvard referencing section of course, but I guess we could tweak that in this case if it was felt to be useful. Personally, I'd like to keep them in descending date order, but perhaps the format for US entries could ensure inclusion of State without too much change at all e.g.


 * Sanchick, Myra. "Salvia: The New Pot", Fox6News WITI-TV, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 2007-02-14.

There may also be a case for e.g.


 * Sanchick, Myra. "Salvia: Underground Drug Getting Attention", Fox6News WITI-TV, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 2007-02-15.
 * Sanchick, Myra. "Salvia: The New Pot", Fox6News WITI-TV, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 2007-02-14.

I'd quite like to keep some kind of disclaimer as well to be honest, just to clarify. Yes, the stories need to be referred to as they're part of the overall Salvia phenomena, but I like to clearly ensure they're not bestowed with undue credibility. I do take your point though, so I'll maybe think some more about that before we get into further discussion.

--SallyScot 23:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I put a general invite for comment and debate in Talk:Salvia divinorum

--SallyScot 18:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The MediaWiki software
NOTICE: This comment is completely unrelated to the other discussions we are in the middle of having.

I noticed that your user page currently states "MediaWiki can be run for free on any computer with Windows XP Professional". Actually, MediaWiki can be run on any computer running Apache, so it can run on any edition of Windows XP as well as on a number of other operating systems. —Remember the dot (t) 06:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Make that Apache and MySQL, providing that you can get them working. —Remember the dot (t) 06:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And IIS too, since I'm running it that way. And more likely than not, any web server that supports CGI and PHP as well. Reswobslc 06:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, it'll work a bunch of different ways. So you might want to change your userpage so it doesn't imply that XP Pro is the only way it will work. But it's your userpage. —Remember the dot (t) 06:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Title
So, aside from our other discussions, do you still object to using the title Comparison of privilege authorization features as discussed at Talk:User Account Control? —Remember the dot (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and write what you had in mind. If what you write fits the title, I can't imagine anybody will object.  If someone thinks the title should be something else, they'll move to change it.  I probably don't feel Run as administrator should be merged into anything else, but if whatever you write looks like it covers the same thing, then chances are I'll change my mind. Reswobslc 03:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've gotten the Comparison of privilege authorization features article started. I welcome your input on how to improve it. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You've got the following sentence in the article: To combat this problem, modern operating systems use one or two methods. The simple method is to give users limited-privilege accounts, switching to a higher-privileged account only when necessary. Another method is to have users run with administrative privileges as before, but require explicit permission to grant a process administrator rights.. If it were me, I would have the article expand on each of these "methods" and then explain which of the commands/functions fall into each one, so as to not have an article that's a simple listing of su-like commands.  Also I might include setuid/setgid in the mix as well, since they're another flavor of the same concept. Reswobslc 06:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

HighGrow
Hi, I've added a deletion proposal tag to HighGrow; if you can find references to satisfy notability, feel free to remove it. Marasmusine 18:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Short Message Service
Hi there,

I got an edit conflict regarding your recent edits and chat on the talk page for SMS - this is what I had in mind:
 * Could you kindly, in that case, explain how anyone sends a Short Message Service from their phone? I don't generally expect to receive an MSC, BSC, BTS  or SMSC over the air when I receive a text!  All that is irrelevant, however.  There is scope in the wiki for separate articles for the social aspects of texting, and the technical aspects.  At present, some of the misplaced postings are due to the split of articles into text messaging and this SMS article, with the resultant wikilinks pointing to the wrong place.  I've been going through them gradually, editing each article on its merits, based on whether the article means text messaging the social phenomenon, or the Short Message Service.  So far, that editing has been slow due to the high number of articles that need checking (hundreds), and my boredom threshold (about 10) - I've asked for help on this, but so far nothing, so it's been down to me to date.
 * On top of that, I would question the relevance of common usage vs technical. Following that argument, we could merge all technical TCP/IP articles into one on "internet", since that's all the great unwashed generally know about the technical details.  That is a clearly ridiculous merge (not to mention probably a ridiculous analogy) but I hope it makes the point.  As to what the non-English speaking world calls stuff, surely that's the job of the non-English Wikipedias to address?
 * All of this is beside the point, anyway. We now have 2 articles, the SMS one, and the Text messaging one.  Both are, IMO, deserved, and both need updating... What is required is some sense from editors, to decide which article their contribution applies to.  Once all the wikilinks are sorted out, then that should become easier;  in the meantime, thank you for volunteering to help keep the social and technical aspects separate!

Please excuse some of the flippancy in that reply - it's kind of my style; anyway, I hope my reply confirmed your realization on what we're trying to do with the pages - we want to keep the social and technical aspects distinct. At no point in my edits with the split, or the recent additions, have I lost detail - in all cases it's just been moved to more appropriate places. I hope you are now in accord with my (and others) intentions for the SMS & texting pages! Carre 18:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply on my talk page, which seemed to ignore the apology for flippancy:

''Could you kindly, in that case, explain how anyone sends a Short Message Service from their phone? I don't generally expect to receive an MSC, BSC, BTS or SMSC over the air when I receive a text!... Carre 18:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)''


 * You are right from a technical perspective, just like when I say my boat has GPS, I don't mean that my boat contains a constellation of 28 satellites orbiting the earth. Bottom line is there is no ignoring that to a significant portion of the world, an "SMS" is a text message, just like a GSM handset is a "cellular phone" even though it doesn't use AMPS cellular technology. It's only fair for Wikipedia to acknowledge that, because its audience is normal people, not communications infrastructure engineers. I have changed the first section of the SMS article to clarify that it's talking about the GSM Short Message Service, and although SMS supports text messaging, that "text messaging" is something else, somewhere else. Reswobslc 18:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC) 
 * I have edited your changes to the lead - SMS was originally defined in GSM, not elsewhere, so I put that reference back, however I like your pointer to the use of SMS for Text messaging which may be used in some places. I want to be clear here - I do NOT want the SMS article to be GSM specific - I want it to address all the SMS implementations there are, so I removed some of your GSM-only edits.  Please consider adding non-GSM details, rather than making the article GSM only;  I can only comment on GSM stuff myself, being a Brit, but I don't want the article to be GSM only, I want it to be about all the SMS implementations over SS7 there are.

Dell Schanze
reswobslc,

Dell Schanze has edited his blog once again, this time making a threat to the Wikipedia in regards to wikipedia Entry. You can review it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dell_Schanze&diff=138708690&oldid=131747087

The ip address is guranteed to be Dell Schanze himself, as reviewing his other Edits will clearly detail. I highly recommend this issue be escalated, but I'm not sure how threats against the wikipedia organization are dealt with (Via ban or other means). Please review if you'd like. I apologize if this is not the appropriate method for escalation.

I appreciate you having been so 'understanding' of Dell, and I am sure you have been more than fair in your attempt to assume he's simply ignorant, however I assure you as I know him personally, and as the comments now recently left by his IP address will testify, he is not ignorant... and is fully aware of the Wikipedia standards and rules... Simply put, Dell doesn't like Rules.

I would highly advise you to take his 'warning' seriously and begin to realize that he simply needs to be banned from the wikipedia.

If you respond, would you please respond via YOUR talk page... as I'll be roaming IP's the next week or so.

Regards,

Me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.138.65.1 (talk • contribs)


 * Oh please. Give me a break.  If he wants to pee in his corner, let him.  You're overestimating the size of his parade and the significance of his "threats". Reswobslc 00:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey... I don't know about you, but any man who 'threatens' an organization, and is a known to have an arsenal of automatic weapons seems to me to be someone that is a little on the dangerous side. But I suppose you'd know better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.138.65.1 (talk • contribs)


 * Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia anyone can edit. There is no "organization" to speak of, or to threaten.  The people who run the servers aren't the people that wrote the stuff he's getting upset about.  Besides, Dell is a graceful guy.  By the grace of Superdell, all the media people he hates are still alive, and by that grace, the people at the Wikimedia Foundation based all the way in Florida, far from him, and who have never heard of him, let alone written about him, probably have nothing to worry about. Reswobslc 23:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Run as administrator
Hello. I think that all the content covered in Run as administrator is now covered in User Account Control. Would it be OK with you to redirect Run as administrator to User Account Control? —Remember the dot (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, though I'd suggest the mention of "run as administrator" appear near the top. I hate seeing redirects on Wikipedia that don't immediately make sense, only to refer to some obscure mention of the redirected term 16 sections down. Reswobslc 02:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. How do you suggest we work that in? —Remember the dot (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did it. Reswobslc 03:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Punctuaction in Seven Segment
Hi! I created the Punctuaction in Seven Segment because were punctuaction in digits and were only digits, so I created that part. Did you remove the punctuaction because it have the digital point optional? --Michael Peter Fustumum 09:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed it because I believe the "punctuation" symbols were made up and are nonsense and are not used by any real device. Devices simply don't use 7-segment displays for displaying imaginary semicolons and slashes and all sort of other characters that don't fit on 7-segment displays.  Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, and unless you have a source that supports the idea that these additional symbols are in use by real-world devices, they are probably as inappropriate as somebody's made-up words. Reswobslc 16:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

'''OK, confirmed. :)'''

Heh
Bitter much? Well, keep up the good work. My old articles are train wrecks from the era when inline citation was nonexistent. They could use a good prodding. Cool Hand Luke 05:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If anything, annoyed, just like you. I wasn't on Wiki back then, that must have been when WP:V and WP:OR were nonexistent too. Reswobslc 06:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Neh, they existed, but they weren't used like today. They'd more often be cited in VfDs (now AfDs) than on talk pages. I usually tried to include my sources in a section at the bottom, but inline cites were very rare even on featured articles until halfway through 2005. Cool Hand Luke 06:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

UoP edit
Good catch! The actual quote states just the opposite of what someone tried to make it say:

"The University of Phoenix is very adept at spinning the accreditation story. Like all universities, they do have regional accreditation. However, they haven't been able to secure program/professional accreditation. And all of the best business degree programs now carry both regional and professional accreditation from an accrediting body that's been approved by the Department of Education."

I don't know if it's worth including this in the article but whoever added it or changed it to mean the opposite was completely dishonest or mistaken. If you manage to track down the edit(s) that added or changed the quote, please let me know! --ElKevbo 17:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete nomination of Camille Cleverley
A tag has been placed on Camille Cleverley, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Wikipedia is not CNN. Camille Cleverley is not notable. The article gives no relevant details

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- WebHamste r  23:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Alleged non-notability is not criteria for speedy deletion. See WP:CSD.  See Talk:Camille Cleverley. Reswobslc 00:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But no assertion of notability is. The article does not assert notability nor does it demonstrate any.  WebHamste r  00:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh huh. We'll let the community decide that.  (This spot reserved for the told-ya-so link.) Reswobslc 01:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Mmmm-hum. Looks like we finally know where the "told-ya-so" link goes to, and it doesn't appear to be your talk page. I do hope that your faith in the community hasn't taken too much of a pummelling.  WebHamste r  18:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, not really. What I told you (no assertion of notability was false) was quickly determined to be in fact so.  Though, I'm surprised you're here to claim your AfD "victory" after telling us all how you're above such pettiness.  What tune would you like trumpeted in your honor? Reswobslc 21:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Mo Foster
 (Template was here but refactored by User:Reswobslc)  Before practising any more vandalism perhaps you should know some of the subject matter of the article you are deleting from. Please note that Mo has written an autobiography, has an in-depth website and has produced a fair amount of comedy material during his career. Now you know that where do you think the likely source of the information would be discovered? The items you are deleting are neither WP:OR nor contrary to WP:BLP. In Utah liking toilet humour maybe a hanging offence but in the rest of the world it's neither offensive nor libellous, especially when it's something that is well known amongst the people Mo works with (and there are an awful lot of people in that category). If you wish to add citation tags then please do so, but do not delete any more information from this article or I will issue further vandalism warnings. WebHamste r 20:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the warning, but WP:BLP is a non-negotiable policy. You cannot put unsourced commentary about living people in Wikipedia.  Jimbo has asked us to delete that sort of stuff on sight, no questions asked.  I don't doubt that any of the content you posted is true, but the responsibility for providing references for your comments lies with you, not me, as you seem to suggest.  You are welcome to issue all the warnings you want, just as I am welcome to delete them.  You may also repost the very same content in Mo's article... as long as you source it first!  Happy editing Reswobslc 20:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing content from your own talk page
Just to confirm, if you're not already aware, that you are expressly permitted to remove any content you want from your own talk page. —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  00:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:FUR expedited request
I see you participate in WP:FUR debates. I would like to call your attention to an expedited evaluation request at Fair_use_review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

University of Phoenix
My bad, I didn't realize that the comments do not show up the article! Just assumed they did in my ignorance. My apologies! Still think that comments like that give fodder to the UofP fans who think that the article is skewed against them, but again I was wrong with my assumption that they could be seen and certainly had no reason to characterize them or you as "stupid."Mysteryquest 11:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Frescata
A tag has been placed on Frescata, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 12:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:MollyMormonBookCover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:MollyMormonBookCover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Leslie A. Lewis
A template has been added to the article Leslie A. Lewis, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of the page. FCYTravis 08:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Image template
Works of the Federal government are public domain by definition. However, that does not apply to works of state governments, and surveillance camera footage from a state courthouse would seem to be the latter. The state of Utah asserts copyright over at least some of its works (its Web site, for example) and thus we cannot assume that its camera video is public domain. The mere fact that something is a public record does not mean that it has been released to the public domain. Public records acts in California require that material be available for inspection, for example - they do not require that the material be made available for free redistribution and duplication. We need to find out what the law in Utah says about works of the state government. If the state asserts a copyright, then it's not free. FCYTravis 22:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Leslie Lewis article
I'm sorry for the offense, but the article doesn't belong - we don't write "biographies" about a person for which we cannot compile a comprehensive, balanced biography. The only reports of Ms. Lewis' life are negative - associated with a single incident. We are not YouTube and we are not blogs. Wikipedia does not allow a single incident to define a minor figure's life. Unless we can create a balanced biography which reports on someone's life neutrally and is not entirely about a single, apparently negative, incident, then we don't write them at all. That's established policy at WP:BLP.

''Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted.''

Otherwise, what we end up with is this person being defined by this single incident on Wikipedia, forever. That's not what we're about.

I would suggest a compromise where a small mention is inserted in Viral video, without the inflammatory and opinionated "abuse of authority" language. FCYTravis 22:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Great. Then by the same twisted logic, let's remove Amelia Earhart, whose life was otherwise non-notable until she hopped in an airplane, as the article is equally "un-balanced" in favor of her tragic incident. Reswobslc 22:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * She's not a living person. We have the benefit of historical perspective and extensive research done on Earhart's life. We have no such material available on Lewis' life and works. All we have for her is a single negative incident which made the news for a couple weeks. That does not allow us enough information to create a biography. FCYTravis 22:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not true at all. As an elected official, there is plenty of biographical information "out there" on her.  I am just not familiar with it.  That is not grounds for deletion of an article.  Oh, and by the way, this was a lot longer than "a couple weeks".  It's still showing up in the news even as of this month - a full year later - as the Utah Supreme Court recently censured her, but since you have deleted those cites, nobody would have ever guessed from the article itself.  Reswobslc 22:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is, actually. Again, read WP:BLP. All Wikipedia editors need to familiarize themselves with this policy, as it is one of our most ignored. FCYTravis 22:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Mormon
Hi Reswobslc. I sympathize with your most recent comment on the DRV. "Anti-X" implies prejudice or persecution based on a person's beliefs (or other fundamental characteristics), and certainly there is plenty of real anti-Mormonism to be found in this world. But a reasoned critique of a belief system should not be included under that heading. "Protesting" in this context is anti-Mormon because it is speaking without listening; "proselytism" (at least at its best) is not. Thus I would not submit the people in the image as examples of how "anti-Mormonism" isn't always so bad; rather, they should not be in the article because they fundamentally were not engaging in anti-Mormon activity.

Anyway, I am not presently inclined to jump into this topic with both feet, but if an issue ever arises on which you would think it helpful for me to comment, please let me know. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Überplay
I only just now saw what I can only regard as your childish vandalism of the Überplay article during its AfD discussion. Please don't do that sort of thing. -Stellmach 18:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this supposed to be a warning, or are you just speaking your mind? I assume you noticed I haven't edited that article in months, don't you think it's a little late for "please don't do that sort of thing"? Reswobslc 20:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, no, mate
That's not how it works. The fact that nobody has commented on the issue does not give license to reinsert his name. FCYTravis (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Nobody commented on the issue"? Not quite a fact as you say.  The entire talk page consists of nothing but comments about the issue.  Let me guess: the "way it works" is however you say it works ignoring consensus?  See WP:PROCESS. Reswobslc (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your RFC generated exactly one comment. In the matter of a marginally notable performer whose name is not widely known, there is no encyclopedic reason to include the information, given that it has not been widely mentioned in reliable sources. We are respecting his request pending further information. FCYTravis (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no "I" in "we" - you are the only person touting this position, which you're certainly entitled to do. What you are not entitled to do is (ab)use your administrator status to enforce it against consensus without giving a strong reason to do so ("no encyclopedic reason" doesn't quite cut it).  Don't you think that if privacy is really the issue, that removing STEVEN HAWORTH from the edit history would also be a good idea?  And how about the German Wikipedia as well?  They got no problem with it... Reswobslc (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My actions are pursuant to . FCYTravis (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Which means only that the request was made confidentially, and adds no merit to the action by itself. Steven Haworth's name is a matter of public record, and the community, not you, is who makes that call.  For you to insist otherwise is to abuse the privileges with which you've been entrusted.  Reswobslc (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You are inserting contentious personal information without a reliable source. That is in violation of several policies, not least of which is the verifiability one. FCYTravis (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a load of crap and you know it. This reference I obtained from the article history and is a government record that's about as reliable as you can get.  Not that you really care... Reswobslc (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The PTO document does not contain any information which would prove that the registrant is the subject of the trademark. It simply tells us that a man has registered the trademark. It would be original research to extrapolate from the registration, the real name of the trademark. Furthermore, it has been repeatedly determined that using a PTO document does not demonstrate encyclopedic interest in his real name. We need to see a major newspaper or other secondary media source using his real name. That would demonstrate that it is broadly public information. FCYTravis (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion and exceeds the bounds of your privilege to use a heavy hand to enforce it in the name of OTRS. The community has clearly decided that the encyclopedic interest exists - your opinion to the contrary is marginally relevant.  And needless to say, the community doesn't buy your argument that the registrant isn't really the wrestler, so why should I?  Reswobslc (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter for argument. It's plain fact. The registration document: one, fails to demonstrate encyclopedic interest in the name and two, contains no proof that the registrant is the subject of the trademark. "The community" can no more decide that the document says something it doesn't, than the Catholic Church can decide that the Earth is at the center of the universe. FCYTravis (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. I think I already understood that from the beginning.  Your opinion is "plain fact" as you say, and the "way it works" is however you say it works ignoring consensus.  I think I get it. Reswobslc (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

RFAR
Let's please keep this dispute civil and factual. I would ask that you retract your assertion that I told the user in question to file the ticket. It's not supported by the facts. My first involvement in the matter clearly cited the OTRS ticket as my rationale for taking action, and is timestamped several hours after the ticket was logged. FCYTravis (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I will not retract my assertion - it's easily proven. Which time stamp is later?  2006-09-22 19:09:01 (the timestamp of your "first involvement comment" you cite) or 2006-09-22 11:35:00 (the timestamp of her public complaint, and most certainly not her first public mention of the issue)? Reswobslc (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, which is later... her public comment at 11:35 (11:35 a.m.) or my involvement at 19:09 (7:09 p.m.)? You just proved my point. The OTRS ticket was received at 15:42 (3:42 p.m.). FCYTravis (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well, I refactored it as requested. Reswobslc (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And I will strike my comment. Thank you. FCYTravis (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon merge proposal
Please weigh in on the merger proposal between Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon and Linguistics and the Book of Mormon. I saw that you were a recent contributor of one of the pages in question, and thought you would be interested.--Descartes1979 (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

MOS question you might care about
See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Cool Hand Luke 06:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Get paid to
Agh, my bad - I protected the talk page, not the article! That'll teach me to do things too quickly :) Black Kite 09:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Airspeed tape.png
Thank you for uploading Image:Airspeed tape.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Message
Blocks are quite warranted when a user is edit-warring unsourced information in violation of our biographies of living persons policy, despite repeated warnings. Good day. FCYTravis (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Then maybe a block is warranted upon yourself, as what you've replaced it with is no more reliable. Reswobslc (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI BLP-watch bot
Heyo. I haven't followed the content dispute latley, but I noticed your edit summary about BLPWatchBot. That bot does not revert automatically, but only on the explicit instructions of the editor whose name is given in the bot's edit summary. Many users control the actions of the bot. It's a little strange, I know; you can consider the bot a proxy of the user given in the edit summary. Cheers, &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 01:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The user in the edit summary used the bot to engage in an edit war without leaving an edit summary let alone contribute to the discussion. The edit war was over the semantics of a category name, unrelated to BLP.  If the bot's purpose is to revert on behalf of a select few, and they use it to revert whatever they feel like it BLP or not, then why bother calling it a BLP watch bot? Reswobslc (talk) 02:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

University of Phoenix
Not sure if you aware of it, but there was a major rewrite of the UofP article and inasmuch as you have done a lot of editing of it, you might want to weigh in on the ensuing discussion regarding the controversy/criticism section which is taking place in the Talk section.Mysteryquest (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

FCYTravis
Thanks for your words. Unfortunately, it has made me realize that all the talk I've heard about Wikipedia and its admin policies are completely true. The fact that a 16 year old, a college dropout, a stay-at-home mother, or a graduate of a community college can hold more power and precedence than someone with higher academic and/or experience quality shows a degree of ignorance that I can't even begin to accept. We work for our knowledge, we put up the time, the money, and the effort to gather our educational statuses. That should be recognized far beyond a group of friends stating "yeah, I think he would be a good admin because we chat online." Pure bullshit. Sorry, I didn't mean to rant. Thanks for your words, once again, at least not every individual on this wiki is a complete moron. Unfortunately, I found one on my way out the door. Cheers. bigjake (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

re: star wars kid
Um, OK. So should I start a thread on the talk page and find out what the consensus is?  RC-0722 361.0/ 1  04:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV inputs at 1831 polygamy revelation and 1843 polygamy revelation requested
NPOV inputs to the articles 1831 polygamy revelation and 1843 polygamy revelation would be greatly appreciated. The 1831 polygamy revelation article in particular is receiving a lot of attention since its appearance on the DYK section of the main page, and many recent editors appear to be fixated on endowing it with a particular POV and deleting relevant cited information from reliable sources. If you are knowledgeable about this subject, please feel free to edit these articles yourself, or invite other editors to do so. Écrasez l&#39;infâme (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Issues with TinucherianBot in Project Banner Tagging for WP:FOOD
Thank you for expressing your concerns on the recent issues with TinucherianBot in Project Banner Tagging for WP:FOOD. I have made some comments and explainations at Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval and I am leaving this note just for your information --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 09:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR
You're obviously aware of this rule as you just left a warning for another user. Several others have reverted you. You are the only one who's currently exceeded three reverts. Please get consensus for including the link instead of edit warring over it. --Onorem♠Dil 23:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think an editor is using a sockpuppet inappropriately, take it to WP:SSP. Either way, you are still past 3RR. --Onorem♠Dil 23:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And then I would be requesting page protection instead of warning you. Either way works for me. Nobody wins in mindless edit wars...and you didn't attempt to discuss on the talk page until after you'd been edit warring past 3rr. --Onorem♠Dil 23:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"and you didn't attempt to discuss on the talk page" - Sorry, I don't count requests for discussion while edit warring as counting as actual discussion. There's no reason why you couldn't have started the discussion yourself. --Onorem♠Dil 23:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:G1000 MFD screenshot.png
Thanks for uploading Image:G1000 MFD screenshot.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

October 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

recent article
your helpful editing at MILF is much appreciatedDGG (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

MSDN
Hello there! While browsing through the history of the MSDN article I couldn't have noticed that it was you that practically wrote from scratch the "Software subscriptions" paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microsoft_Developer_Network&diff=89161673&oldid=84678020 more than 2 years ago and I guess that as of today it still stands with practically few modifications. While you referenced your work thoroughly, I'm mostly interested by the 3rd paragraph which says: "An MSDN subscriber is entitled to activate as many copies as needed for his/her own development purposes. Therefore, if a computer enthusiast somehow has 20 computers at home which he uses himself for software development (and aren't acting as part of a business, for example, a server farm), one subscription allows all 20 of those computers to be running their own separate copy of Windows, Office, and any other Microsoft product. After a few installations, the activation keys will stop allowing automatic product activation over the Internet, but after a telephone call to the Product Activation hotline to confirm that the installations are indeed legitimate and consistent with the license agreement, the activations are granted over the phone." Would you please be so kind and indicate a reference to that statement, as I've been trying to find it for quite some time now, without luck! Thank you very much! Sincerely yours, Vlad|-> 14:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that was explicitly written into the MSDN End User License Agreement. When I did a quick Google search to try and find it, I had a hard time finding the EULA for even my own subscription.  (I figured searching from the MSDN site should turn it up.  Unintuitively, doing a Live search at msdn.microsoft.com for "MSDN end user license agreement" doesn't turn up the license agreement...showing only an irrelevant "Academic Alliance" agreement...typical Microsoft.  My subscription is not "academic".)  I had an MSDN Universal subscription at the time I had contributed to that article, and I still have a subscription (possibly they call it something else now) in which they send me gobs of software every month "for development purposes only", including activation keys that have always worked (I don't think I've ever installed anything over 10 times to know for sure though). Reswobslc (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your answer! Unless I'm not mistaken the MSDN EULA was linked in the article, as a reference: http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/MSDN%20Subscription_Premium%20Edition_English_36b85cb5-cdc0-43d8-90c1-fa168f15ee6d.pdf I've read it, but haven't found anything similar to what you said (even if I also knew pretty much the same thing). Everywhere in the license agreement they mention 1 usage and 1 backup copy... --Vlad|-> 12:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ring Indicator
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ring Indicator. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Ring Indicator. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Reswobslc! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Leslie Lewis -


 * It's the wrong Leslie Lewis, I did not write or contribute to the present article in any way - but thanks anyway Reswobslc (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!!
Thank you for your help on the Brittny Gastineau page. I have been trying to include more information about her part in the Bruno movie, but Dayewalker and Onorem Dil are being very combative about not including it. Maybe we can finally get it included!! Now there are two of us actively involved in this, and maybe we could try to get Spidey involved in this fight again (he used to fight with me, but he gave up because Dayewalker and Onorem Dil are so voracious). 128.104.truth (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

B Gastineau
Abortion comment, this is controversial content about a living person, please read WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT and if you still think it should be inserted please first discuss and seek support on the talkpage here Off2riorob (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You left me a note about Brittny Gastineau's abortion comment being controversial and referenced WP:BLP. The event in question is rather well sourced and established.  BLP isn't about omitting things the subject would prefer concealed. It's about making sure such things are well sourced and I don't think that's at issue here. A brief mention of appearing in the theaters is no less undue weight for a starlet than a mention of Michael Jackson dangling his child off a balcony.  Reswobslc (talk) 10:43 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Hi, just keeping conversation in one place, imo there is no comparrison at all with jackson and it is also poorly cited but please discuss it on the BLPN thread or the article talkpage, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Dell Schanze
Just a heads up, the Dell Schanze article has just been ripped apart, and I'm new enough that I don't know how to stop them.

Fair use rationale for File:G1000 PFD screenshot.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:G1000 PFD screenshot.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk  05:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:HighGrow screenshot.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:HighGrow screenshot.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of The Energy Detective for deletion
The article The Energy Detective is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Energy Detective 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of SwipeClock


The article SwipeClock has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unreferenced article about back-office software that makes no claim to meet the notability guideline for products.

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. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

QNAP help requested
Hi, I noticed that you have made several contributions to NAS-related topics. I'd be grateful if you could help improve my stubby QNAP article prior to its review so that it can get accepted. Thanks :)  Tu rk ey ph an t 07:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of DELTREE


The article DELTREE has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This article does not establish its notability by showing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject itself.

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. Codename Lisa (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of DELTREE for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article DELTREE 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/DELTREE 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. Codename Lisa (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of HighGrow for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article HighGrow 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/HighGrow 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. The1337gamer (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:HighGrow screenshot.png
 Thanks for uploading File:HighGrow screenshot.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

File:F-27 Stryker Lighted.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:F-27 Stryker Lighted.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Simon Cowbell listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Simon Cowbell. Since you had some involvement with the Simon Cowbell redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 21:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

ΚΩ listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ΚΩ. Since you had some involvement with the ΚΩ redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. – Laundry Pizza 03  ( d c&#x0304; ) 12:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of StuffBak


The article StuffBak has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Promotional company piece lacking independent sources."

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. Mccapra (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:PCscrew6-32.jpg


The file File:PCscrew6-32.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bat phone


The article Bat phone has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Several topics merged together as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. No independent reliable sources to provide WP:SIGCOV."

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. Jontesta (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Bat phone for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bat phone 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/Bat phone 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. Jontesta (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of NO CARRIER


The article NO CARRIER has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "not notable"

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. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)