User talk:Stevertigo/Archive 20

template:Consonants with audio
Hi, this template you started is proposed for deletion. The discussion is here: Templates for discussion/Log/2010 October 16. -DePiep (talk) 08:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Your ArbCom case
Can I please remind you to make sure that you post your comments in your own section so that we don't have to move them? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to be too argumentative, but if I don't post them inline with their preceding comment, others will probably not see them or else will fail to link them to the preceding comment. By posting inline, I allow the preceding party to see my response, and allow the associated custodians to move the comment soon afterward. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've moved your comments posted on the 19th. Please do not comment outside of your section. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo ArbCom case update
I just wanted to let you know that ArbCom has moved the case to the proposed decision stage. The proposed decision may be viewed here and may be commented about here. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best, NW ( Talk ) 14:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:


 * is banned from Wikipedia for one year. If Stevertigo wishes to return to editing Wikipedia, he must first work with the Arbitration Committee to an establish a set of probation criteria. He may do this no earlier than six months after the closure of the case, and no more than every six months thereafter.
 * Stevertigo is required to cite a published source for any material he adds to an article. Should he fail to do so, any editor may remove the material without prejudice. Should he cite a source that is subsequently determined not to support the material added, he may be blocked for a period of up to one week for each infraction.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk ) 20:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

Per email request, I have now deleted the bulk of Stevertigo's sub-pages. Roger talk 08:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Donny.svg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Donny.svg. 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. Template:Di-no fair use rationale-notice, Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

-->

With regard to my (old) userpage, I don't want to deprive certain editors the satisfaction of having a "gotcha" notice on it - that's largely what it represents to them, I think. So, the ban notice appears to be part of the show. But it doesn't tell the whole story, does it? I appreciate the fact that some editors understand that a little dignity still has a place at Wikipedia. I don't have twice as many edits as most of my average critics because I was a threat to the project. Anyway, I've never been one to post a service award, but that seems to do the trick here on the talk page and should probably work well for the user page too. At least the combined picture is more complete than what a simplistic "gotcha" notice alone shows. Thanks to all concerned. -Stevertigo 04:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Your one-year ban has expired and you are no longer blocked, so I have removed the templates from your user and user talk page. The award can stay, of course, but I hope you don't mind me moving it to the right. :-) In case you come back, please note that the ArbCom doesn't want you to resume editing just yet, see remedy #2. Cheers, theFace 14:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * He's back:  - theFace 19:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Toomanytags
Template:Toomanytags has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Vowels with audio
Template:Vowels with audio has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Nolan-based political spectrum.png
Thank you for uploading File:Nolan-based political spectrum.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 06:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rock-bands-timeline
Template:Rock-bands-timeline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 19:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Secular education


The article Secular education has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * not a dictionary

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. Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Death sidebar
Template:Death sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Considering-l
Template:Considering-l has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:CategorybrowseRC
Template:CategorybrowseRC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. WOSlinker (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:RAScroller
Template:RAScroller has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. EmanWilm (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sidestack
Template:Sidestack has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Wikipedia cleanup capitalization
Category:Wikipedia cleanup capitalization, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 08:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Jumpf
Template:Jumpf has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Iraq-war
Template:Iraq-war has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment
This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The Great American Wiknic
Hi there! In the past, you've expressed an interest in local meetups of Wikipedians. Well, here's your chance! On Saturday, June 25, we'll be joining Wikipedians in cities all over the country for the first annual Great American Wiknic -- the picnic that anyone can edit! We'll meet up at a park in SF -- hopefully in the sun -- all other details are still in deliberation!

If this sounds fun, please add your name to the list: Meetup/San Francisco/Wiknic and add that page to your watchlist. (And of course, feel free to edit that page with your ideas, questions, etc.) I look forward to wiknicking with you! -Pete (talk) 00:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

UOJComm (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:MirrorUK Bush AlJazeera plot.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MirrorUK Bush AlJazeera plot.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Hzrule.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hzrule.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the 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. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T/C) 23:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Iplain
Template:Iplain has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Dis
Template:Dis has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

File:WPint.png missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:WPint.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Yochanan for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yochanan 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/Yochanan 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. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The New Crusade: America's War on Terrorism


The article The New Crusade: America's War on Terrorism has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SmartSE (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Deroyalise


A tag has been placed on Template:Deroyalise requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes ( ).

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to 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 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. 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. Bulwersator (talk) 07:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
I've proposed deleting Template:Cut and Category:New templates. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on Campaign for "santorum" neologism
- please back off dude.  You really can  20:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPA
Your comment in Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism is a clear violation of WP:NPA. Please withdraw it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

commons:File:Circaflier2.jpg needs verification
Hi Stevertigo, You had originally uploaded that image, which I transferred to the Commons. Would you be able to provide an OTRS verification for that? It is currently marked for deletion. Thanks LegoKontribsTalkM 06:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

"Critics consider..."
Hi, Stevertigo. I'm hoping you can clear something up for me. Way back in 2005, you introduced content into the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth article that said: critics consider the group an example of a successful political smear campaign. (Please see your edits here and here.) I believe the content you introduced is valid, but I have recently improved that text based on existing reliable sources. I've removed the specific "critics consider" phrase, so that the text now reads: The group's tactics are considered an example of a successful political smear campaign. The "critics" designation has been removed because reliable sources indicate that not just critics consider it a smear campaign, but so do impartial journalists, academics and scholars, non-partisan fact checkers and investigators that don't have political motivations or biases.

Now I'm being told by another editor that you proposed the "Critics consider" wording in a consensus discussion, and that my changing of that wording is going against that consensus - and he reverted my edit. (See the other editor's comment about your wording here.) I've searched the Talk archives unsuccessfully for discussion of the "Critics consider" wording, and I was hoping you could point me to where you proposed those two words for discussion. I can't get this other editor to provide a specific diff. Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ("Let's keep two-way conversations readable" - Nice.) Xeno, its been almost 7 years, so I can't recall there being much in the way of discussion on that point, maybe just a brief joust with another editor or something the like. I do recall using the "critics consider" language out of a kind of diplomacy - anticipating problems with all other general ways of writing it. So using your wording as a base, it would look like "The group's tactics are considered [by critics as] an example of a successful political smear campaign." This kind of language only makes sense as this view at the time was a rather partisan one, and "critics" nominally identifies who thinks such and why - "critics" serves to both differentiate and identify sufficiently. Now the partisan divide may have smeared out a bit in the years since - Republicans/conservatives may concede that the Swift boat campaign was indeed a smear campaign, and may themselves even use the term "Swiftboating" for their own uses. I haven't seen this myself, but its possible - what I have seen is rather widespread journalistic usage of the term "Swiftboating." This doesn't mean we can disqualify the usage of "critics" in this article - we should probably preserve it as a nominal identifier, and in any case as a way to preserve the historically accurate distinction noted above. I'm all for adding depth with regard to additional sources, etc., but we have to consider things from the historical point of view too. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. SMP0328. (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Libel
The Flynt/Falwell affair is incredibly fascinating, and one of the most important Supreme Court decisons ever. Worth learning more about. Here's the necessary reading.

District Court on libel charge in Falwell v. Flynt: http://www.opengovva.org/foi-opinions/court-opinions-mainmenu-62/744-falwell-v-flynt

Supreme Court: Hustler Magazine v. Falwell: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0485_0046_ZS.html

Analysis suppporting decision by Rodney Smolla: http://www.XXXXXX.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDoQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.wm.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D2023%26context%3Dfacpubs&ei=a8E-T7i0L8XLsga8k6TFBA&usg=AFQjCNEwef6WLQP8klFuyBBPtJ931K2AKA

Rebuttal of Smolla's analysis by Bruce Fein: http://www.XXXXXX.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.wm.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D2024%26context%3Dwmlr&ei=gMY-T7beCs_ysgacssngBA&usg=AFQjCNEBN6tpjj61zMyaWZ2Kp0s3kSJR3A

Replace the XXXXXX in the last two links with google.

Enjoy! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD and PROD notifications
Hi Stevertigo,

Back in December, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, which was part of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links to the templates), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at mpinchuk@undefinedwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

2nd amendment article
Yes, your edits are essentially corrupting the article. You are chopping blindly, not looking at what you are removing. Do you honestly intend to remove the reference section, see also section, categories, inter-wiki links, notes/citations and all external links? I hope not, but that's what you're doing. It's not a good thing. Ravensfire ( talk ) 22:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Timeline of pornography
Category:Timeline of pornography, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dennis Miller Live


The article Dennis Miller Live has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unreferenced for over five years, fails WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stifle (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Basdiv
Template:Basdiv has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of PBS idents for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article PBS idents 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/PBS idents (5th nomination) 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. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15
Hi. When you recently edited Immortality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trauma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

File:WPint.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:WPint.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the 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. Thank you. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 15:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

salvation
Your reversion of the last four months of work has been noted. Your claim that the existing tags have no corresponding discussion on the talk page is false. please look more carefully before you destroy other people's work. 81.106.127.14 (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23
Hi. When you recently edited Soul, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Immortal (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) 11:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Chealer (talk) 05:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Sufi (disambiguation) unneeded
The Al Suf entry was unsourced and not discussed at the Rumi article, so I deleted it as unverifiable. The page is now a 2-term DAB and I've proposed it for deletion, with time to discuss it and expand it with valid entries. See further discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote. Diego (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

BitTorrent
Hi, Steve. I noticed your changes regarding the "BitTorrent" articles (reflecting the term's primary usage). Please note that it's improper to redirect "Foo" to "Foo (disambiguation term)", so I've moved BitTorrent (protocol) to BitTorrent. I realize that this required a page deletion, which I'd be glad perform at your request in uncontroversial cases such as this. —David Levy 13:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback (2)
—David Levy 06:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 22:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Nomination for deletion of Template:Unsolved
Template:Unsolved has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gnevin (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Article rework
Thank you for paying attention to it. I would also mention this and this as things to think about. But in any case, I will leave it in your hands. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 04:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
You restored my removal of the PET scan image, I've started a discussion here (per BRD), Talk:Soul, cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

New message from Gareth Griffith-Jones

 * In view of your recent posting on the Talk:The Godfather, I thought you would like to see that I have taken action – on all three articles, and copied the full current strand to all three Discussion pages.
 * Please click on my name in the blue box to take you directly to the relevant part of a much too long Talk page!
 * -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Murder of Lin Jun
Replacing a redirect with a subst template is decidedly odd, as is creating a WP:FORK WP:CONTENTFORK of an article in the middle of a WP:RM to the very title you created the fork at. I have reverted, I think you should reconsider this sort of thing. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You should at least have waited for the WP:RM to run its course, I can see you've been around Wikipedia long enough to realize that was unconventional. My first inclination was to just take it to WP:ANI and then wash my hands of it.  I think those edits were unwise. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In reply to your message at on my talk page, it's not just POV forks that are listed as "unacceptable types of forking" at WP:CONTENTFORK, but also "redundant content forks". — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

BRD
I noticed you reverting an editors changes without giving a notice but instead mentioning BRD, note this from WP:BRD: Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work, also note: ''The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.'' IRWolfie- (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I notice that jess has already specifically told you this exact same thing: Talk:Criticism_of_atheism. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

comments on hatnotes
Hi - would welcome your further thoughts on a compromise proposal now evolving here: Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote. Thanks! --KarlB (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Your perspective would be valuable: Anti Christian Sentiment (Israel)
Hi there. I've noticed your collaborative work on the Christianity article and was impressed by your spirit of cooperation, sensibility and knowledge of the subject. I'm currently trying to resolve issues on another article: Anti-Christian sentiment particularly pertaining to incidents in Israel. I have opened a RfC and outlined the problem here. I would be grateful to have your input should you feel so inclined and think it worth your time. Regards, Veritycheck (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. If you have any recommendations regarding the language you think most accurate to describe the spitting attacks, it would be valuable to help us achieve a consensus. Veritycheck (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have summarized the consensus and edited the article Anti-Christian Sentiment accordingly. Please see that it meets your approval. Veritycheck (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Disease
"Human Condition" is a song by Slayer, and it is covered by Wikipedia. Please stop deleting navigational function from Disease even if you feel disdain for pop culture coverage. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I've caught up to the note on WP:HATNOTE. I'll update the Human Disease redirect as well and re-shorten the hatnote. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Changes from WP:PRIME to WP:PTOPIC
I notice that you are changing links to WP:PRIME so that they point to WP:PTOPIC instead. Can you please explain why? Those two links resolve to the same place, and in at least one instance that I noticed, you changed someone else's comments on a Talk page in a section identified as "Please do not modify". —BarrelProof (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation (on my Talk page). That looks pretty bold to me. (That's not a complaint.) —BarrelProof (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:prime objective
Must it be an essay or a guideline? It looks good to be an essay, especially with Wales's philosophy. --George Ho (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Luka Magnotta
Hello, I am curious to know why you are attempting to circumvent the do not move consensus by submitting the article for another AfD. Taroaldo (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * We can see where AfD 4 is headed. I would like to ask you to consider withdrawing the AfD. Thank you. Taroaldo (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Prime objective
Prime objective, 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:Prime objective and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Prime objective 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.

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote#Finalizing_the_new_proposal
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote. KarlB (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletionism
I've noticed a few times you referring to editors pejoratively as deletionists in two separate instances (the criticism of atheism article and the Ethereal Beings AfD). Can you please stop doing that. Thanks, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Ethereal beings
Roodog2k (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

So do you want to get involved in the Time article?
Can you help?71.169.176.253 (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)