User talk:Spalding

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I thought useful:


 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Brilliant prose
 * List of images
 * Boilerplate text
 * Current polls
 * Mailing lists
 * IRC channel

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. How? The Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 01:36, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Public domain images
Welcome! I noticed your question about public domain images on the New user log. You may be interested to read Public domain image resources, Public domain resources or the article public domain for clarification on what qualifies as public domain. If you upload any such images be sure to tag them with (see Image copyright tags). Oh and any mistakes you happen to make can be easily rectified, so don't be afriad to edit boldly. Hope this helps and happy editing! &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 14:14, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Sam Spade and Trilobite. I was mostly looking for pictures of scientists, and the Library of Congress is down today, so no luck. I did fix a link on one of the pages though. That must be a very common need here, isn't it?

KGB
Hi!

I certainly didnt mean to sugest your edit was vandalism... it was the annons edits after yours ( diff) which I objected to. In fact, I reverted to your version diff. I appologise for my ambiguous edit summary: it was inteneded to imply "rv to last version by spalding, due to anon vadalsim of that version". I hope that this apology satisfys you with out clogging up the page history further, but if you still feel it needs clarifying there, please drop me another line! cheers, Iain 08:39, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Very good. Thanks! Spalding 11:28, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Assembly language link
Hi, I just wanted to thank you for the link you added to assembly language. It's a very good site that I've read myself but had forgotten all about. Thanks again. Derrick Coetzee 06:47, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. That's been in my favorites for quite a while, even though I only have fond memories of assembly language programming, since I haven't done any in ages.  There was a broken link to it in the other external link.  It is an excellent article - a great example for Wikipedia. Spalding 11:29, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Article licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

License of image
Could you clarify the license of the picture Image:Swiss Chard.jpg. Is it ?Rasbak 14:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I just put a tag on it.  I didn't originally because that was my first image upload and I didn't know how to edit the description page. Spalding 20:20, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Denver
Can you vote for John Denver on the Article Collaboration Drive? Thanks. Carolaman 19:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Judith Crist
Thanks for your edit! SaraK 23:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Werner S. Pluhar
Thanks for the editorial work on the Pluhar article. I'm delighted to see that no one else seems to have noticed its existence. I've been engaged for a few months in a discussion of the problems of Wikipedia and the Pluhar article is an interesting experiment. Pluhar is sufficiently obscure to filter out nearly everyone who frequents this website but the article is still open to change. We'll see how things proceed.


 * No problem - that was pretty minor - I just now added his personal web page for more context.

Walter A. Shewhart
Spalding, There is a factual error in the Watler A. Shewhart article which is similar to the one you corrected recently in the control chart article: "In 1938 his work came to the attention of physicists W. Edwards Deming and Raymond T. Birge. The two had been deeply intrigued by the issue of measurement error in science and had published a landmark paper in Reviews of Modern Physics in 1934. On reading of Shewhart's insights, they wrote to the journal to wholly recast their approach in the terms that Shewhart advocated." There may be some useful information in this reference mixed in with the factual errors. Deming didn't write to the journal because he had just discovered Shewhart's work. Whatever was written to the journal probably came about because of insights caused by Shewhart's lectures at USDA. Since there is no reference to a specific journal article this appears to be speculation. I would appreciate you views on this section of the article. Thanks. Leaders100 12:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Bicycle physics
The article, now titled Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics, has been nominated for FA. Since you may have worked on it in the past, would you care take a look at it again? AndrewDressel 01:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is very courteous of you to make all these notifications, Andrew! You are one serious bicycle/motorcycle physics dweeb!  I fell in love with the concept of countersteering when I first encountered it in the Motorcycle Safety Foundation course. Thanks, and I'll take a look.  Spalding 16:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal on Notability
Because you're a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, I'm notifying you that the inclusionist proposa Non-notabilityl is in progress to define the role of notability in articles. Please help us make this successful! Also note the proposal Importance is a deletionist proposla that seeks to officially introduce notabiltiy for the first time. Make sure this is defeated! --Ephilei 04:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy of Fools Edit
What is your source RE the namesake for Eichenwald's book? Curious.--Utahredrock 04:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have one. I just was curious what the name of the book was so I found and added it.  User Tazmaniacs had put the author there previously.  A surface glance at a Google search for both titles together just turned up Wikipedia clones. Spalding 22:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested change in redirect for IPA from International Phonetic Alphabet to IPA (disambiguation)
Please comment. --Karnesky 15:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You wrote
 * I think like most TLAs with multiple meanings the TLA itself should go to the disambig page. The reason is the user can then choose for themselves what they are looking for. I'll bet most direct queries here are people looking for India Pale Ale, and like me, are too lazy to type it out. I was going to be bold and just move it, but all the links here make that difficult or inadvisable. Any suggestions? Spalding 00:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have since fixed the incoming links, so this is no longer a concern. If you feel the same as you did back in April, please consider voicing your support for the change in redirect. --Karnesky 21:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I supported the move. Thanks for your initiative in this.  Spalding 23:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Pi-unrolled
I recently cranked out a new and greatly improved version of Pi-unrolled.gif and (why not?) nominated it for FP. Since you commented on the workshop page of this graphic, I'd like to invite you to comment on the new nomination. Thank you. John Reid 04:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Disambig statements
Hiya. Disambiguation statements should only be used if the Wikipedia user possibly came to the article looking for a different article. You are welcome to put these kind of links under a "See also" or "Further reading" section at the bottom, though, but the top of the article is only for quick navigation to the right article, not just further pedia-sploring. Learn more at WP:DAB. Camaro96 18:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

World Class Standards
Since you were curious, the previous version of the article was deleted because it was an essay, not an article. DS 17:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

World class standards
It was mainly just a procedural thing. Your recreation of the article (a much better start than the direction taken by the old articel, BTW) counts as objecting to the deletion. I would have recreated it for you, but, quite frankly, I like where you're going with it. Good luck.  young  american (ahoy hoy) 02:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Leuko 19:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Edward Tenner
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Edward Tenner, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Edward Tenner seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or 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 assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Edward Tenner, 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. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I saw this after the article was deleted. Edward Tenner wrote a well known book, so I think that's enough notability, but fighting deletionists is just too hopeless.

Human Factors for Highway Engineers (book)
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Human Factors for Highway Engineers (book), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a link to where the book was used as a reference in a scholarly article, and noted my objections on the talk page, that it is an important link in building the web on the important subject of traffic safety. Spalding (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm deleting the proposed deletion tag for the article since you clearly contest it, but just remember in the future that when you oppose the proposed deletion that you can simply delete the tag from the article. The instructions written above outline this. Thank you. --  At am a chat 18:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate the advice, but I see I am too late and the article has been deleted anyway. This is getting frustrating. Spalding (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Human Factors for Highway Engineers (book)
I have nominated Human Factors for Highway Engineers (book), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Human Factors for Highway Engineers (book). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. --  At am a chat 18:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Wikipediaholic
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Pyrospirit ( talk  ·  contribs ) 20:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, it looks like it was only deleted out of the main namespace but is still in the Wikipedia namespace, so I can live with that. . Spalding (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Selection error
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Selection error, 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 should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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 agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Selection error. Mattisse 00:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice, Matisse. It has resulted in an improvement to Wikipedia since I was using the wrong name for the article.  I have renamed it to Description error, which is the accepted name for the concept.  I also added an external link and expanded it, and linked to it from other articles, then removed the proposed deletion tag. Spalding (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, have a look on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:P-chart 31 October 2008 Martin Segers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.239.157.3 (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Slaters
A tag has been placed on Slaters requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Age Happens (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Something is wrong with this process since the article was deleted before I even got this. Oh well, I'm not going to aggravate myself fighting it. Spalding (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Joining in the fun more seriously
Hi Spalding - I've done a few edits to Checklist over the last few days, just got back from a talk by Atul Gawande (author of Checklist Manifesto) and finally looked to find out who'd created the page in the first place. I don't have any pages I am currently feeling responsible for, and would be happy to adopt this one - I've got a lot of good content from other credible sources that I could add to it. And it connects with several of my passions (checklists & passions sounds strange, right? but its still true - I've also got a thing for rubrics and worksheets, but I haven't looked at those pages yet).

I am profoundly impressed with what wikipedia had already accomplished and have high hopes for its continued growth and the influence it can have to help promote positive change in the world. I'm checking in here because I haven't been an active member of the wikipedia editing community yet - just an occasional interloper (although I have managed to teach >40 undergrads how to edit wikipedia pages for their first time). Would love to connect and learn more about how best my skills can support the wikimedia hivemind. Pop me a message when you can? Melissaganus (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, I just now noticed this! That's great, Melissa, edit away!  The talk by Atul Gawande sounds great - after going back and reviewing his Checklists article in the New Yorker, I want to read more by him.  He seems like a great documenter of a huge current issue, medical safety.  I am in constant awe of what the aviation industry has achieved in making an inherently risky endeavor like air travel very safe, and it is probably my main interest in life to see the elements of this success story applied to other fields like medicine and engineering where ever possible.  And it all started with a humble checklist.


 * One interesting facet of this story may be instruction creep, where the well-intentioned development of the simple checklist can lead to long and unwieldy "improved" checklists, and usability suffers as a result. Just a thought.


 * I'll continue this epistle over on your talk page. Thanks for seeking me out for a conversation, Dr. Melissa. By all means, join in the fun more seriously! And I am honored to help you do that where ever I can, especially since I share some of your interests. Spalding (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Spalding! 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) 20:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Jac Holzman -

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nielsen Norman Group


A tag has been placed on Nielsen Norman Group 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 an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Article notability notification
Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote, David Boyle (author), has been recently tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources:. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 16:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Description error for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Description error 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/Description error 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. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  12:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yay! The article was improved and therefore saved. A nice example of Wikipedia in action. Maybe deletionists aren't ALL bad. :) Spalding (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=579378693 your edit] to Description error may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 10.1.1.128.7084&rep=rep1&type=pdf Design Rules Based on Analysis of Human Error, by Donald Norman]

Disambiguation link notification for December 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Multichannel code, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Matrix, Acoustic and Audio compression (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) 12:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, DPL bot. Yes, I admit that I included those links without checking to see if they were disambig pages, so thanks for performing a useful service in notifying me.  I just fixed all three.   Spalding (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mental Models


The article Mental Models has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * The article's subject fails WP:NBOOK.

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. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Mental Models for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mental Models 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/Mental Models 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. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Kenneth Craik & mental models
Thanks. Been a while since I revamped Kenneth Craik article, but would be interested in your interest. Photo of KC would be nice if doable; more critique on his pioneering 1943 thesis (section on book?) on mental models awesome. (Latter article in great need of improvement, esp. 75+year history of evolving concept, & linkage.) Let me know your particular interest - some matter available for scholarly purposes. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I got interested in his work through my interest in human factors, usability and the work of Donald Norman. I would love to read his book again and maybe include some points from it in the article. Spalding (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Effie Award


A tag has been placed on Effie Award 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 an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Chuck Prophet for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chuck Prophet 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/Chuck Prophet 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. Atsme 📞📧 14:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mr. Know-It-All


The article Mr. Know-It-All has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Ueferenced article about a TV show's segment. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. No objection to bold redirecting like has been done with most other similar plot summaries seen at Template:The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends."

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 09:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Islands of automation


The article Islands of automation has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Entirely unsourced, and not even a dictionary definition, since it tells us that the phrase 'islands of automation' has been used to describe two different things. A Google search finds some usage, but nonthing to suggest this is more than vague IT-market-speak jargon. Arriving at any sort of overarching definition would require WP:OR. The last sentence is unadulterated waffle."

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. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of User expectations


The article User expectations has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No evidence of notability. Seems like a rehash of parts of user experience."

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. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of User expectations


The article User expectations 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. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of David Boyle (author)


The article David Boyle (author) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No significant coverage in secondary sources (WP:BASIC)."

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. Liam McM 17:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Water spot


The article Water spot has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "no sources for a decade, not encyclopedic"

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. TarkusAB talk / contrib 19:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Information sign


The article Information sign has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Are not all signs supposed to be informative by definition?"

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) 17:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Information sign for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Information sign 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/Information sign 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. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)