User talk:Taylorluker

You can sign your comments using four tildes ~. Not sure what this is about, the article you had as the section heading appears not to have been deleted by anyone, if the title was correct. I did delete your user page which had a speedy request on it, but I haven't found any work on it - I'll have another look and put it in a sandbox if I find anything. jimfbleak 14:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I see another editor removed spammy material - a price list is 'not encyclopaedic. Any editor can edit any page, you do not WP:OWN the article, even if it is your project. Advertisements are not permitted, and material may also be deleted is it fails the notability criteria. You may also note that advertisements on user pages and talk pages can be deleted too.  [[User:Jimfbleak|jimfbleak 15:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The deleted text is in the page history here jimfbleak 15:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Even without prices, such a comprehensive list looks highly promotional. You are supposed to be describing the product, not adding material to promote it or its add-ons - I liked the sortable table though, jimfbleak 15:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, found it, I'll put it here in a couple of minutes. Please read WP:OWN. jimfbleak 16:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look at any page history, the user is always listed by each edit, so it's easy to find the user page. Once it was tagged, it also came up on the articles for speedy deletion page. jimfbleak 16:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification
I think you may have misunderstood. There was a difference between the article RapidWeaver and your userpage. The article did not contain spam, so I didn't touch it. Your userpage contained a price list, so at the very least the price list needed to be removed, and someone decided to remove the whole article. Wikipedia's policy against advertising may seem excessively harsh to you, but it is what it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by YechielMan (talk • contribs).

I must agree with the above, I do not think offense was intended, however, it is how the user space text read. Navou 17:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on your follow-up comment to me, I will start a discussion at deletion review. That is the formal address for requests to undelete articles.  I am not sure how to handle this, but Deletion Review is moderated by some of Wikipedia's most senior editors, and they will try to negotiate a reasonable solution with you.  Best regards. Yechiel Man  23:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Your sandbox
I have removed the MFD (miscellany for deletion) template, and the criteria for speedy deletion template from your sandbox as I do not believe it was intended to be MFD'd there, and I do not believe it meets the criteria for speedy deletion being located in /sandbox. It does not appear blatant. The original text you were working on appears intact. Good luck editing, Navou 18:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage
I have read your reasoning on User_talk:YechielMan and am willing to send you the deleted content of your userpage via email. For this, you'll have to set an email-id for your account at Special:Preferences. Also please note that price-lists are considered unencyclopaedic and unacceptable in articles (see Spam for more details). You may use your userspace for developing articles however it's usually better if you use a clearly marked /Sandbox page rather than your userpage for this purpose. Thanks --Srikeit 07:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Common Ground (NYC)
Wikipedia is not a promotional medium, and the articles in the encyclopedia are not a way to promote businesses or organizations, no matter how worthy their activities are. I have removed from this article some of the material you added as being overly promotional, and therefore unencyclopedic. If you are connected with Common Ground in any way -- as a paid worker or a volunteer -- you should go to WP:COI and take a look at Wikipedia's policies on editing with a conflict of interest. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please do not edit war over this. The material you added -- such as a staff list -- is unencyclopedic and should not be in the article. If you wish to make an issue out of this, I will happily bring it to the conflict of interest noticeboard and we can explore your relationship with the organization and to the COI editor whose contributions were previously fixed. Please answer my question: do you have a relationship with Common Ground?  Are you employed by them, or connected to them im any way? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you also take a look at WP:COPYVIO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Referring to this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Ground_(NYC)

I believe you deleted:

- Organizational Accomplishments

- New Ventures

- Goals

- Key Staff (Board Officers, Board Members, and Senior Management Team).

I have reverted the live webpage back to the work I originally did. I appreciate your input, but I respectfully completely disagree.

"promotional medium"/"overly promotional"/"uneyclopedic"

The above things I stated are unbiased, fact based and are in no way persuasive. Stating the people that work there is no different than saying Bill Gates worked at Microsoft. Is that promotional? No. It provides fact-based information. Goals of a strategic nature also provide key insights into the organization. How is stating this type of stuff any different from stating for-profit organizations profits/revenues? Isn't this in fact promotional? In the same way that criticism can be said about organizations, positive information should be equally allowed. In fact in a sales pitch I would probably not use any of the above information. Finally, in what way is it explicitly promotional? It's not. The only promotion would be for volunteer time or money. Neither of these is mentioned or suggested even in the slightest bit.

"connected with Common Ground in any way" ("as a paid worker or a volunteer")

I am not a paid worker of volunteer. However for the record I don't see why this would be a conflict of interest. If I am student and edit a page on my College is this a conflict of interest? If I am professor and add information to an academic page I am knowledgeable on, is that a conflict of interest? No. "Insiders," volunteers and employees are in a unique position to provide information in a neutral non-promotional way.

I would happen to discuss over email. I find it hard to have a fluid conversation over Wikipedia.

taylorluker@gmail.com

Thanks.

P.S.> I do not want an edit war. I WOULD like:

1 a legitimate way to solve this issue

2 to have an honest dialogue.

It is not far that you (or anyone) says something is so, and it is so. I don't believe in Wikipedia Gods, why should you have the last say?

A staff list, simply provides more information on the way an organization is structured and key people in the organization. The same way that other wikipedia pages list key figures with companies. Unencyclopedic and thus applied promotional, I don't see how a staff list fits this description. In what was is saying Joe Johns run IT promotional? It is not in any conceivable way.

Simple stating that is unencylopedic is not an argument. As far as it being an issue. It is an issue to me:

1 I worked very hard on it

2 I strongly feel it is valuable to the Wikipedia community

3 I don't think that people should swoop in an arbitrarily delete anothers work.

Can you please not speak in acronyms. I don't know what this statement means: "COI editor whose contributions were previously fixed."

I am not employed nor/do I volunteer for Common Ground, although this should be outside the realm of the debate. Again, what harm is an "insider" posting encyclopedic material. None.


 * This is a link to Wikipedia's policies on editing with a conflict of interest: WP:COI
 * This is a link to Wikipedia's policies on copying material directly from other website: WP:COPYVIO
 * Follow those links, read those pages, and learn and understand Wikipedia's policies, then we have a basis for a mutual discussion about your edits. In the meantime, while you have no understanding of the rules, your statements about them are just plain wrong.
 * Come back to me and we can talk once you know what you're talking about. In the meantime, please do not revert again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Come back to me and we can talk once you know what you're talking about. In the meantime, please do not revert again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Come back to me and we can talk once you know what you're talking about. In the meantime, please do not revert again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you've now reverted again anyway, here's another policy you might like to know: WP:Edit warring. Now, I am going to go through your edits section by section, and any that are direct lifts from the Common Ground webiste I will delete as copyright violations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

Just citing the rules doesn't make you right. I would also add that acting like a all-knowing Wikipedia God, who rules this site and is the boss, is not conducive to problem solving.

I know what a conflict of interest is. I don't have a conflict of interest.

As far as the edit-warring, you are just as guilty of a war as I am. Repetitive deletion is no better than repetitive reversion.

As per common human decency, all you had to do was mention the potential copyright violation and I would of fixed it. I think you have a legitimate point. All the quotes are cited, I could easily added direct quotations or paraphrase. No problem. As for going back and threatening to delete every single quotation...... I really don't appreciate the manner in which you say this. If something needs to be fixed I will fix it. Using editing as tool for aggressively getting back at someone is destructive deleting, completely immature, and the opposite of what Wikipedia is about. Shameful.

Quite frankly, just stating that rules doesn't at all justify your argument. Again, I don't believe in rule-gods, and you may have legitimate points. If so please state what rules you are citing.

Luke

(edit conflict) - For your convenience, I have now gone through the article and made my edits bit by bit, with a specific reason given for each edit, instead of the omnibus edit I made before. I have "wikified" section titles (i.e. brought them into compliance with our style guidelines), deleted unencyclopedic material such as staff lists, deleted material that was a close paraphrase of stuff that's in the Common Grounds website (and therefore a violation of our copyright violation policy), removed material that was duplicative of stuff that's already in the article (which was also, BTW, a copyright violation as a straight lift from the website), and removed stuff that was too promotional. So, now you can see specifcially what I removed and why. You'll note that the bulk of the awards stuff you added is still there, as is the material on 100,000 Homes and other programs. I have not (and did not) simply remove what you added, but went throguh the article quite diligently and removed or changed only that stuff which should not be there. If you have specific questions about any of these edits, then please feel free to ask here and I will explain further. However, if you delete them again wholesale, you will likely be violating our policies on edit warring and could be blocked from editing in the future. Please consider carefully your actions. I'll be happy to respond to your focused questions here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, you assert that you have no conflict of interest, and since assuming good faith (AGF) is a core value of Wikipedia, I will take your word for that. Given this, let me give you some background on this article: It was created and develped by an editor who most assuredly did have a connection with Common Ground, and was for a long time overly promotional in tone.  Someone tagged it to be checked for its neutrality, and I spent a great deal of time completely re-doing the article to bring it in line with our policies on neutral point of view (NPOV) and copyright violation.  (You can see my efforts in the article's history, here.  Now, here you come, you add stuff that  seems promotional and looks like it was lifted or paraphrased from the organization's website -- perhaps you can see why I may have jumped to an erroneous conclusion about your connection with the group? As I said, if you have questions about specific changes I made, I'll be happy to answer them.  Some of the copyvio stuff wouldn't be appropriate to be added the way you did anyway (by just adding a section) but should be integrated into the main article's text instead, if it was rewritten in a way that wasn't a copyvio. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

--

Specific points (not questions, you are not a professor, boss, parent):

1. I want to again address a point which you never have responded to. I don't appreciate somebody who claims to be a Wikipedia-God like you. Telling me to read the rule book. Threatening that I will be blocked. This is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. You don't own this site anymore than I do.

2. "Key Staff: deleted section - not encyclopedic to have staff lists in articles)"

This is not an argument. I see nothing in "the rules." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil, has a very similar list, there is no real distinction between board of directors and staff. If the board is allowed, so should the staff be allowed.

3. "→Awards and Accomplishments: wikify section, removed promotional material not connected to awards) (undo)"

Stating a fact is not promotional. Exxon Mobil positive financial data is far more "promotional" than stating metrics meet. This is fact-reporting.

3. "→New Ventures and Goals: copyright violation, from http://www.commonground.org/?page_id=24)"

There are only so many ways to say this information. I will keep this information, dramatically paraphase in order to avoid copyright violation, while still reporting the information.

4. No problem on the erroneous conclusion my connection to Common Ground (which does NOT exist). I thank you for your hard work trying to make this article the best it can be. To me stating fact-stating is a NPOV. The main rebuttal would be selectivity, leaving out negative stuff and criticism. You can refer me to pages and pages and pages of Wikipedia legalize which certainly do exist. However, as someone who seems to know their stuff, could you tell me in plain English what consistutes as lack of NPOV? Again, staff and accomplishments (metrics, hard events) to me are as close to NPR, C-SPAN type reporting as possible.

5. "(→Strategy: tghis section is duplicative -- this has all been discussed in the body of the artricle above)"

Sure, there is some overlap, but in no way is it a direct repeat. The word "strategy" is mentioned 3 times in the article, no where is it listed so clearly, concisely, sequentially, or in plain english. My section added some unique value. The closest the body article comes is this:

"identify and prioritize the most vulnerable individuals on the street, assess and negotiate housing options with those individuals, then house and retain." Besides this any mention of strategy is a narrative, not clear concise bullets. The 3 step process "Identify and Prioritize," "assess and negotiate" and "house and retain" mentioned in the body is a distinctively different strategy/proces that the strategy I mention.

6. I am confused on the copyvio, I don't understand what this is. Any formatting or stylistic changes that you made, I am completely OK with.

Thanks.


 * I've tried to be straightforward with you and explain the situation, but you seem to have some kind of chip on your shoulder about authority figures - but that's not my problem, that's yours. When you're interested in addressing me as your colleague in building an encyclopedia, and not as the jerk you have to get around to get what you want, feel free to do so, and I'll be happy to respond, or if you're lucky maybe someone else will come along who can help you.  In the meantime, you might just want to follow those links I provide and actually learn something about Wikipedia's policies rather than make bad assumptions about them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sir,

I have in no way been a jerk to you. I have been respectful and straightforward in my comments. I have tried not to make things personal.


 * You're right I do have a problem with people acting authoritatively on Wikipedia, when this is a authority-free environment. My real problem is when Wikipedians come in, swoop in, and delete work on a whim, deleting hours or work, seemingly acting like Wikipedia Police.  Oh wait, their is no court hearing. These deletions serve as the police, judge and jury. This is not fair.

I have addressed you as a colleague and tried to make intellectual and fact based arguments and have wanted a real discussion. I am simply pointing out that I don't appreciate the manner in which you conducted this deletion. Delete hours of work, then ask questions later. Then upon intellectual challenge of the deletions, you said oh read the rules, I am the Wikipedia expert, you're not. I'm right, you're wrong, there is no discussion. I don't appreciate this at all. Events like this make me HATE Wikipedia. I would like to add, had have you been victimized at all? You havent..

I have followed the links you provided and reviewed them. I am not a member of Common Ground as per link 1. Link 2- plagiarism, I am well aware what this entails and concede to make necessary.

Time and again, you have called for specific points. I have given you those specifc points. I spent time working on these points, have spent over an hour dealing with this. Oh of decency, and in keeping with promise, I would appreciate an honest response to each #ed pointed (besides, one word arguments like "promotional" and "read the rules" this is not an argument.

Thanks.


 * Given this, this, this, this, this and this, I see that this is not the first time you have come in conflict with other editors about your contributions. What I see here is not a problem with Wikipedia's policies or rules, but a behavioral problem on your part.  I see:
 * A tendency to make pronouncements about Wikipedia's policies without actually understanding what they are.
 * A tendency to immediately edit war rather than discuss with other editors.
 * A tendency to play the victim -- Why are you doing this to me, a human being? -- rather than attempting to understand the policies and practices here.
 * A tendency to blame systemic problems in Wikipedia for your own faults.
 * Obviously, you're a human being, and you're free to do what you prefer to do, but do let me tell you that in my five years experience on Wikipedia, I've seen a lot of editors who come in with the same kind of attitude that you are projecting and, invariably, they've run into trouble. They butt heads, they dig in their heels, they talk when they should be listening and, eventually, they either leave in total frustration, because they can't bend the insitituion into what they think it ought to be, or they are indefinitely blocked by an admin or are banned by the community.
 * If that's what you're aiming for, to be blocked or banned, then keep it up, you're on the right track. If, instead, you're interested in contributing to Wikipedia in a productive way, start actually  paying attention  to the copious information you're being given, which contain the keys to survival here, and pay less attention to your preconceived notions. Most of all, approach your editing with a certain amount of humility, and realize that others with more experience (and I'm not necessarily referring to myself) may have a better idea than you do of what's appropriate to be in an article and how Wikipedia works.
 * It's up to you, but please look to others for your further education, I'm out of here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If that's what you're aiming for, to be blocked or banned, then keep it up, you're on the right track. If, instead, you're interested in contributing to Wikipedia in a productive way, start actually  paying attention  to the copious information you're being given, which contain the keys to survival here, and pay less attention to your preconceived notions. Most of all, approach your editing with a certain amount of humility, and realize that others with more experience (and I'm not necessarily referring to myself) may have a better idea than you do of what's appropriate to be in an article and how Wikipedia works.
 * It's up to you, but please look to others for your further education, I'm out of here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's up to you, but please look to others for your further education, I'm out of here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's up to you, but please look to others for your further education, I'm out of here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

-

2 different incidents (not 5 as your refer to above), I make no qualms about it. You're right I have had conflicts this sort of thing you're right. I have nothing to hide, nor is their any shame in that.

As to my behavioral tendencies you could not be more wrong. I believe I understand Wikipedia's policies. True, I am not an expert, please enlighten me with your wisdom, because as of now I haven't heard anything new. And no I have never got into an editing war, ever before. Again and again I have tried to get in an honest discussion with you. But again and again, you're argument is "I'm right, because of the rules." When in all actuality there is no specificity in the rules and they are quite grey. I am attempting to understand the policies/practices. I did lose a lot of hard work and valuable contributions I made, there is no denying that. You deleted my work, arbitrarily, that remains. Again, just playing bad cop, doesn't make what you say right. And you forget the most important thing, there are no cops in Wikipedia. The only thing that makes you right over me, is arguments, of which you have none. Are you saying Wikipedia has no systemic problems? Well, Wikipedia has tons and tons of systemic problems, let's be frank. That is not debatable. There are number of structural things that cloud this, a lack of a solid arbitration process, deleting in mass- without consulting the author, a inferior communication platform, I could go on.

Just for the record, I am not a head butter. What really offended me is deleting tons of my work on a whim and them refusing to compromise or have an honest conversation about it (the i'm right, because you're wrong argument). I've listened to everything you have said. Everything. Institutional, if you think I EVER will get frustrated/burned out, then you're greatly mistaken. The institution is what WE make of it. My problem is man-made.

As far as your threats of being blocked by an administrator, that doesn't scare me at all. I regret none of my actions, nor would i do anything differently. I have done nothing harmful and have made every best faith effort to make a positive contribution. You are just as likely to get blocked as me. If trying to get an honest discussion and ensuring the best article makes it, then I am on the right track. Your threats do not scare me. I will yield to experience on how Wikipedia works, I am by far the worst among us at that. However, I will not yield to experience on substance without merit. A 10 year veteran, debating me, a relatively newbie must bring to bear the same merit based arguments and stand on them, instead of hiding behind a cloak of experience. The beauty of Wikipedia is that everyone's vote counts as 1. Everyone. No one has a vote greater than a value of 1.

I have been listening to everything you have said. I have reviewed the materials as you suggested. I get it. I know what plagiarism is. I know what conflict of interest is. I get it. I am not stupid. You offer no further insight on either of these topics.

I do believe their is a structural issue. I would bet that others have had a similar experience as me. I do believe there is a problem with the "command and conquer" deletion process, where users go around and delete content en-mass. There should be a fair, easy, transparent adjudication process.

What would be that behavioral change be? Working for hours on what I believe to be valuable content and then having somebody else on a whim, arbitrarily come in and defeat everything I did. You're right I don't accept that. Neither should Wikipedia. Please tell me the behavior that I should drop or add.

I stand my attitude, and you're right I will not back down. What is your attitude? You're right, therefore, I am automatically wrong and there is not a thing in hell I can do about it. That is a position I do not take.

You're right I don't think it is fair that users like you, come in and just say that I am wrong, why? because of the rule-book. When challenged, oh, just look at rule-book. I still believe, that no matter how relatively inexperienced a new-user can be and no matter how "uneducated" he/she, they can still be right on intellectual merits. I will never back down from this POV.

For all your talk, the one think you refuse to do is examine my point-by-point, line-by-line arguments as to why objectively I think my information should stay. Everything else is superficial. You refuse to address the real issue. Points #1-#6 above. This sir, should be a violation of policy. You absolutely refuse to address my points. In my education I was taught that gentleman address the issues, don't dodge them.

Speedy deletion nomination of FirstBook
A tag has been placed on FirstBook 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), 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. Eeekster (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Brian Keane
A tag has been placed on Brian Keane 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 person or group of people, 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 biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles – see the Article Wizard.

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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), 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. VQuakr (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Global Meetings
I have nominated Global Meetings, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Global Meetings. 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.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.   ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  17:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Amazon Kindle
I don't think it has any encyclopedic value and also I am sure the MOS tells us not to get into pricing. Moreover, the graph is based on your own original research rather than being derived from a RS. Finally, please leave comments on user talkpages not userpages. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

MOS is Manual of Style, RS is Reliable Source - as for appeals process, take it to the talkpage and make your case. Or just stick it back in, I can't say I feel that strongly about it. Having said that, someone else might remove it for the same reasons. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 31st News & Documentary Emmy Awards
A tag has been placed on 31st News & Documentary Emmy Awards requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), 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 administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

NYC Subways graphic
I see your point, but agree with the other editor that it's duplicative. You may want to raise the issue on the talk page. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There were many errors in your duplication of the services table. The most irritating one was your confusion about the difference between a service and a line. Services are numbered or lettered, lines have names. Please see New York City Subway nomenclature for more information. Also, many services can't be classified as local or express due to the fact that they do both, just on different portions of the route. The NYCTA removed double letters from all the local services in the 1980s because of that confusion. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

@Taylor: Once again, I would suggest placing your view on the graphic on the article talk page, so that it is read by the regular editors of the article. I disagree with you and so does Acps110, but you may find more editors agreeing with you if you give your views wider readership. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to your message now on my talk page. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Biggest natural disasters from 2000 to 2011 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Biggest natural disasters from 2000 to 2011 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/Biggest natural disasters from 2000 to 2011 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. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Spam
Please stop spamming non-Wikipedia related items on many user talk pages. If you continue, you will be blocked.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  19:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

[[File:Republican Presidential Primaries 2012.png]]
Dear Mr. Taylor:

I noticed your graph on the Republican primaries page (I actually was against its inclusion), and I want to speak with you. Your effort was appreciated, and I was hoping someone could provide a Wikimedia-version of the Real-Clear politics average graph. My major complaints against your graph as it was are on the talk page, and I find it unfortunate that you did not try again to make another graph. I am currently editing Rick Perry presidential campaign, 2012, and would find a graph of his polling averages to be very valuable, because they graphically show his rise and fall. Similarly, the rise of Newt Gingrich following his long slog in the summer of 2011 would make for a constructive graph. I urge you to reconsider and give your resources another try. If you can put together a graph that documents the rise and fall of the different candidates with polling figures (that is, percentages) on the y axis, and a timeframe on the x axis, I believe it will sustain wikipedia's historical standards and can come to beat out the nationwide opinion polling article hands down. Readers would love your graph, and those who are not major political junkies would be exposed to it by wikipedia for the first time, helping them gain understanding and information. What do you say? Do you have another graph in you?-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 04:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Ashoka USA Fellows-2007


A tag has been placed on Category:Ashoka USA Fellows-2007 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 deleted 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)