User talk:Tyson2k

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Spinboy 05:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Gabrielsimon
Nice post on User talk:Gabrielsimon. FYI, in past experiences with him, he likes to say he has sources but he rarely if ever is specific about them. Nickptar 00:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Calgary edits
Hello. Welcome to Wikipedia. I am excited to see another active user contributing to Calgary, Alberta related pages. I see what you have done in the Calgary neighbourhoods category. I think that these types of articles might be better suited for the Calgary Wiki. I am not trying to discourage you, but just identify another venue that might be more suitable for your content. -- JamesTeterenko 00:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi. You might be right. However, I think there are relevant issues in there, particularily with regard to the Beltline, which embodies many of the social and economic changes, pressures, and issues that are currently facing the city. I was also trying to implement a similar organizational scheme to the family of Calgry-related pages that exist for other cities. For example, Vancouver has a whole suite of articles discussing its more unique and interesting neighbourhoods. I understand that Calgary Wiki is focused more on providing a forum for those who are interested to find out more about things to do, entertainment, events, etc. This was not my goal with the pages I created. I was hoping other users would add more information about these neighbourhoods such as history, social issues, culture, etc. I believe that these things are more relevant to Wikipedia proper than to the Calgary wiki. Tyson2k 00:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Just taking a look at some of the Vancouver neighbourhood articles, I suppose it makes sense that the Calgary neighbourhoods be created. As a resident of Beltline, I can confirm that it really is an interesting area.  As for the Calgary Wiki, I do think this type of content would be appropriate.  Just so that you understand my bias and perspective, note that I am the founder and primary contributor to the Calgary Wiki.  --JamesTeterenko 00:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey
White is an ethnicity. See Whites. But, whatever. I wont revert your edits, but this is just to let you know it's nothing to get pissed about. Also, the religious affiliations you removed were because it only showed christians? Well, I only listed those religions over 1% of the population. Not my problem say Airdrie, Alberta doesnt have 30,000 Muslims Sikhs or Jews. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, no problem. I am also a little peeved at the anon user who added all those statitistics in a very random way. Most of the stats were inaccurate as well. I still have some work to do to fix up his/her edits from Saturday. From now on, I will use caucasian. Actually, to be honest- the totals include all non-visible minorities who aren't aboriginal. That could be anything, really except for the visible minorities listed by statscan. -- [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Earl Andrew - talk 06:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, ethnicity is the wrong term, as StatsCan has a different definition for it. StatsCan does use the term race here so, it should be used instead. Sorry if it is not politically correct. Although, I dont see how it isn't. There are about 10,000 American articles that use the word race. -- [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Earl Andrew - talk 07:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * no no no no! You don't understand. StatsCan has a different definition, and keeps entirely different statistics on ethnicity than on visible minorities. -- [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Earl Andrew - talk 06:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Racial diversity is fine. It's important to come up with a consensus on the issue. But as I mentioned earlier, there is an article on every single municipality in the U.S., and every single article has a racial profile. I also agree that ethnicity is the wrong term for the posted statistics, and that was the point I was trying to get across. StatsCan does keep info on ethnicity, but only publishes the info for the provinces and CMA's. -- [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Earl Andrew - talk 07:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the U.S. is pretty bad. Although it is interesting to see where people are from though. Not that it makes someone better or worse if s/he is black white or orange :-p. Here is the info on ethnicity -- [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Earl Andrew - talk 15:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mormon population in Lethbridge
It may be statistically important when in reference to the Mormon population in other centres or the per capita average across the nation, but certainly not in reference to other Christian denominations in the city. When the number of Mormons is 30% the number of Catholics and 17% of the Catholics, it cannot be considered large to any degree. I should point out that I have no problems establishing that there is a Mormon population in Lethbridge, but it should be written accurately and not in a way that could give the reader the wrong impression. Anyhow, you may be interested to know I have posted on the Lethbridge talk page a suggested alternative for us to discuss. Oh, and for what it's worth, do what you will with Regina, I'm tired of changing it back. Whether I agree with the usage appears to be irrelevant. --kmsiever 04:40, 20 June 2005 (UTC)

Edmonton edits
Thank you for your comments about the Edmonton edits. In short, I have been trying to improve the quality of what was there and have been looking at the Calgary article (which is at 43kb, longer than Edmonton's ;) ) as a kind of template. I would argue that the culture section is absolutely inseparable from the very fabric that makes Edmonton what it is.  In regards of the links to Vue, etc, those were already there - I simply added information about other areas.  If there are any specific triming downs which you feel would be relevant, then by all means make them or suggest them :)

My goal is to presently flesh out the main Edmonton article and then start up secondary articles in the future and data can be moved to those where necessary. It'll be a bit of a process, but hopefully one that can be achieved.

--Rendar 6 July 2005 16:30 (UTC)

Naming conventions (cities)
Having separate naming conventions for U.S. and Canadian cities sucks. Wikipedia is supposed to be a global project. -- Paddu 8 July 2005 07:57 (UTC)

Calgary-Edmonton Corridor
I actually welcome some edits to what I did. However, the part that doesn't pertain to Calgary is the "50% of the Canadian population". Now, you say "Maybe we should remove references to Canada and Alberta too". Well, I would oppose wording like "Calgary is the largest city in Alberta which is one of 10 provinces that make up over 99% of the Canadian population". Or less absurd, but still useless, "Calgary is the largest city in Alberta which is one of 4 western provinces that make up over 25(?) percent of the Canadian population". Without better wording and relevent information, mentioning the corridore tells us nothing. Also, the top of the article should be *extremely* concise and to the point. Please consider another location in the article, so you can explain exactly what the corridore is, it's signficance to Calgary, and Calgary's signficance to it. --rob 02:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Your RfA
Greetings! I saw that you posted your RfA at WP:RFA. A minute later, it was removed by another RfA contributor. The reason for this was most likely that despite it being a self nomination, you had not officially accepted the nomination in the appropriate place on the nomination, and you had not properly proceeded with the creation of the nomination per the instructions located at Requests for adminship/nominate. STOP. Before going to redo the nomination again, please consider the following. It is unlikely for a number of reasons that your nomination would succeed, despite the best of intentions by yourself. Some of these reasons are: There is a document currently under development which may assist you in considering an RfA nomination for yourself. Understand that it is still under development, and may have some errors. That said, it has some very good advice in it that it would be in your interest to read. Have a look at Guide to requests for adminship. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to help you in any way I can. All the best, --Durin 15:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You do not have a user page for yourself (which is why that link is, for now, red). Some RfA contributors like to see a well developed user page.
 * Your use of edit summaries is very low at just 29% of edits. You should use edit summaries for all of your edits.
 * Your total number of edits, at 570, is low. Few editors with less than 1,000 edits receive favorable reviews in their RfAs. You can see a list of standards typically used by a number of RfA contributors.
 * Your rate of contributions is low and sporadic. You might be making very significant contributions using a single edit, by adding material, previewing, adding material, previewing and repeating many times before finally clicking on "Save page". That's hard to tell in a cursory review of your contributions. In your RfA, you will need to be careful to explain why your low rate of contributions should not be a factor in your RfA.
 * You should answer the questions on your RfA. This is not a requirement, but it will significantly help your RfA. In particular, you should provide something other than short, one line answers.
 * It might be a good idea for you to review the nominations of the top ten most supported nominations. You can see a list of all nominations that gained more than 50 support votes.

What are you talking about?
Please read reply on my talk page. --Rob 00:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

See my talk, and show me the diff where I removed your words. --Rob 00:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Calgary/Airdrie Airport
Where did you find the name from as the Canada Flight Supplement lists it only as Airdrie? Thanks. By the way is it in the Calgary area and if so did you update the other articles. Also do you know what other airports are in the Calgary area? Thanks.
 * Even here calls it just Airdrie. I can't find any reference to it being Calgary/Airdrie Airport. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There seems to be no real set practice as to how airports get named on Wikipedia. Some are named for the "offical" name as used by the airport authority and others by the "offical" name used by NavCanada and redirects from the other name. Usually though both names are given in the article which can get messy as the airport can be known by several names, such as the CFB airports. I use the NavCanada name as I nearly always have the current Flight Supplement and so it's just easier. Calgary/Springbank Airport is the name in the CFS and based on your comments I'll update the article to reflect both names. What about Calgary/Okotoks Air Park, I'm guessing that it's also called Okotoks Air Park? Also, would you say the two De Winton airprots are in the Calgary area and are there any others in the area that you know of? I am slowly working my way through creating (stubs) articles for all Canadian airports and am finishing up Alberta, Saskatchewan and BC with the red links in List of airports in Canada (H-L) ready to be added later this evening. I have this List of airports in the Calgary area partly done and the current list of Alberta airports is here Category:Airports of Alberta. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Alberta provincial highways
See my comments on Alberta provincial highway 1 where I think the word "provincial" is redundant. Cadillac 22:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you noticed the List of Alberta provincial highways where every Alberta highway is listed like "Alberta Highway 1" not "Alberta Provincial Highway 1" ?

I was taking my cue from that list. Or maybe you were not observant enough to realize that fact. Cadillac 01:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I felt your remarks were a little condescending. I haven't been on Wiki that long, but your approach was a little sharp. That doesn't excuse my rudeness -- sorry.Cadillac 02:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

regarding alberta
please see Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion. Circeus 18:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for that. I see that his buddy User:Licinius has reposted it. I'm going to revert and rewrite some more of it. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Unacceptable
If you continue to edit my user/talk page I will refer you to an appropriate administator. I suggest you read the Wikipedia's policy on vandalism. Licinius

I will refer this matter to an administrator if you continue to vandalise my page and make false accusations. I suggest you read Wikipedia's policy on this matter. Licinius

Yes that is exactly what I was saying
re: Personnel Attacks

Personnel attacks constitute attacks that are made irrespective of the actions of the person but based entirely on their name or who they are. My comments were specifically about his actions and were my own personnel opinion.

However this is your last warning, I already have an impartial administrator who was sympathetic to my case and if you vandalise it again, I will ask him for his services in adjudication. I suggest you read wikipedias policy on vandalism.

My bad
sorry I mistakenly left it unsigned.

Licinius

You are in contravention of wikipedia policy.

Here's a quote: Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment: rudeness judgmental tone in edit summaries ("fixed sloppy spelling," "snipped rambling crap") belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..." calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of SLANDER or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute.

Licinius

I apologise if you deem my actions offensive. Personally the statments were my opinion, fit in with Wikipedia policy and are of such inconsequence to the development of wikipedia(Which I am far more interested in) that the attitude and hypocrisy you directed towards me was offensive and retaliatory in nature but I will remove the offending statements as consensus demands.

Licinius 13:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Licinius 13:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC) ~ 13:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)~

Image Tagging Image:Cecorr.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Cecorr.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Dethomas 04:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Untagged image
An image you uploaded, Image:Calgary Crest.jpg, was tagged with the coatofarms copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as seal. If you have any questions, ask them at Media copyright questions. -- 23:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:UofC Coat.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:UofC Coat.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there 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. It is now obsolete; see Image:UofC Coat.svg. +mwtoews 05:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:CTransit.png
Thanks for uploading Image:CTransit.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:CS Logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:CS Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CTransit.png
Thanks for uploading Image:CTransit.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Altaair.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Altaair.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, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly hi! 05:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Altaban.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Altaban.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, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly hi! 05:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Stephen Avenue.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Stephen Avenue.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Cop.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Eau Claire.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Eau Claire.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 12:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Olympic Plaza.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Olympic Plaza.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 18:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Cecorr.png


The file File:Cecorr.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:CalgaryCityHall.jpg


The file File:CalgaryCityHall.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Small, low res. Can be replaced with files found here."

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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 00:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)