User talk:Runa27

''Hey! I'm probably not here right now. Leave me message at the tone of the beep. *beeeeeeeeeeep*''

Back from an editing hiatus of... several months, close to a year even(!) if you don't count the more recent edits that I didn't bother to log in for (horrible, I know!). Welcome back, non-anonymous me!

Inactive discussions/comments from before October, 2006 have been archived here. Inactive discussions/comments from before October, 2007 have been archived here, as part of my fall cleaning, if you will. No, I don't know why I always seem to do this in October...

fan fiction
I will try to do a little, but I don't have time for much. I suggest that you also ask for assistance at WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum.DGG (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad for any help we can get. :) Thanks for the quick response, and for the note about WikiProject Novels; I'll try that as well. (This response has been copied to your user talk for your convenience).  Runa27 22:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Girls Just Wanna Have Fun (disambiguation)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Girls Just Wanna Have Fun (disambiguation), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Girls Just Wanna Have Fun (disambiguation) is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Girls Just Wanna Have Fun (disambiguation), please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 08:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Serenity
As is my wont, I've replied on my talk page to your post. - BillCJ 22:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Whedonesque.com
A tag has been placed on Whedonesque.com 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 web content, 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 indicate 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 web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (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. Collectonian (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Whedonesque.com
Hi. I saw you put the hang on tag on the article, but there was no need for it as the CSD had already been declined. If its an article of interest, though, it would be helpful if the article was cleaned up and the issues its tagged for were addressed so that its notability is more readily visible. Right now its hard to see how it is notable on its own (as notability from neither Buffy nor Mr. Whedon is inherited to this site) Collectonian (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies, my mistake.

Your copyedit request
On 12 October 2007, you made a request to the League of Copyeditors for a copyedit on Crossroads (2002 film). Because of a heavy backlog and a shortage of copyeditors, we have been unable to act on your request in a timely manner, for which we apologize. Since your request, this article may have been subject to significant editing and may no longer be a good candidate for copyediting by the League. If you still wish the League to copyedit this article, please review this article against our new criteria and follow the instructions on the Requests page. This will include your request in our new system, where it should receive more prompt attention. Finetooth (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Meetup
Meetup/Tampa -- You're invited! Hires an editor (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

File:Coffeetablebooks2.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Coffeetablebooks2.JPG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Coffeetablebooks3.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Coffeetablebooks3.JPG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Coffeetablebooks4.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Coffeetablebooks4.JPG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A note re: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review
Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xenotalk 15:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Further to the above, we would appreciate if you could briefly take the time to place yourself below one of the suggested statements here. If none of these statements represents your current position, please compose your own or simply sign "Not applicable" under "Other quick clarifications". Likewise sign as N/A if you do not want to participate further in this debate. If you choose not to respond then you will likely not be counted with respect to further consensus-determining efforts. –xenotalk 14:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yo!
Haven't seen/heard from you for a spell. How goes it? --Bluejay Young (talk) 12:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC) & Co.

AfD nomination of List of fan fiction terms
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of fan fiction terms. 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/List of fan fiction terms (2nd nomination). 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) 01:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yo!
I WAZIR!

... WHERE WAS YOU?

Did you see the recent edits to the Mary Sue discussion page? There is a rebellion going on in fan fiction and it's about time. A lot of amateur writers have stood up to say that the Mary Sue concept ought to be either reformed or thrown out on its ear. They think it inhibits amateur authors, particularly women, from writing women characters, especially if they are in any way Awesome. We are proud to say that at least one of the writers discussing this used the quotes we (mostly I) provided on Wikipedia from Camille Bacon-Smith's book. Hope that you are well. --Bluejay Young (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of WikiProject Hugo and Nebula Award Winners
WikiProject Hugo and Nebula Award Winners, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Hugo and Nebula Award Winners and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of WikiProject Hugo and Nebula Award Winners during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JJ98 (Talk)  05:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Survey
Hi Runa!

I have put together a survey for female editors of Wikipedia (and related projects) in order to explore, in greater detail, women's experiences and roles within the Wikimedia movement. It'd be wonderful if you could participate!

It's an independent survey, done by me, as a fellow volunteer Wikimedian. It is not being done on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you'll participate!

Just click this link to participate in this survey, via Google!

Any questions or concerns, feel free to email me or stop by my user talk page. Also, feel free to share this any other female Wikimedians you may know. It is in English, but any language Wikimedia participants are encouraged to participate. I appreciate your contributions - to the survey and to Wikipedia! Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of The New Hugo Winners for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The New Hugo Winners 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/The Hugo Winners 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. DOSGuy (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Coffeetablebooks1.JPG listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Coffeetablebooks1.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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)