User talk:Tkinias/arch20120119

Proposed deletion of Red Jew
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Red Jew, 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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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. cygnis insignis 14:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You did not give a reason for removing the prod, so I restored it. Both pages can be no more dabs, and redlinks in those are deprecated because they do not have refs in them - they are at at the articles themselves. In the case of Red Jew, there is no link to provide. Neither the genus or species articles are up, when they are it can be restored (providing you are able to provide an RS). You will note that I created an article for one redlink, so Jewfish is a dab rather than a redirect. If other cited examples come along they can be added. One dab cannot be directed to another. cygnis insignis 21:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, abbreviations are not always a polite way of communicating. I had to ask the question myself once, how quickly we forget.
 * A dab is a WP:Disambiguation page. These are not articles, and do not contain references. The link will eventually be to the articles on the species, when they are written, which would contain the references to support the common name. Linking it to another disambiguation is not possible, for the reason I have just given, and it does not refer to those species in any case. To clarify: I changed Jewfish to a 'dab' that gives links to the only two articles I could find that gave references for that common name. One was my new article on the West Australian Dhufish (or Jewfish) which does contain a ref for that name. It is not called Red Jew, so linking it is not appropriate. I suppose you could write an article proper on this common name, but I imagine it would be difficult to establish the notability of it outside of a species or genus article. cygnis insignis 19:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page.
 * I'm templating you now. Do not restore it without a solid reference, it is disruptive. cygnis insignis 20:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Red Jew
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. cygnis insignis 05:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Poland jack new.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Poland jack new.png, has been listed at Images and media 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.  Ja Ga  talk 17:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Redlist
Template:Redlist has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ucucha 23:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. – xeno talk 15:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. – xeno talk 12:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome back, you can safely disregard the above. – xeno talk 12:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)