User talk:Xuháska

Disambiguation link notification for September 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frank Waln, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dream Warriors. 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) 09:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mic Jordan


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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you for your note. I have removed the speedy deletion notice from the article because the standard notes that "significance is a much lower standard than notability", and that the criteria includes considering whether certain things could potentially indicate credibility or notability. Coverage by Paper, the High Plains Reader and Wisconsin Public Radio absolutely constitutes a claim to credibility, and, indeed, a claim to notability. I am thus confused by the idea that the article does not pass the "much lower standard". If you genuinely believe that the article does not indicate not just the significance but also the notability of Jordan, I invite you to take the article to Articles for Deletion instead. I understand that to be the next stage in this process. Yadáyiⁿga (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have also removed the speedy deletion tag on Masami Masuda, which explicitly states that Masuda has been covered by multiple magazines, all of which are notable. I would suggest that you slow down in your tagging and evaluate articles with a more careful eye. Yadáyiⁿga (talk) 04:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but in this edit you removed a speedy deletion tag from Mic Jordan, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 04:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you for your note; I have now left a message on the Talk page. Yadáyiⁿga (talk) 04:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Supaman hiphop.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Supaman hiphop.jpg and for sending in an email to our OTRS team. Unfortunately, the permissions received were not sufficient. Due to this a tag has been placed on the image requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. This is due to the image being tagged OTRS received for longer then 30 days without permissions being confirmed and no further responses have been received to attempt to resolve the permission issue. If you have questions about this please feel free to message me on my talk page. --Majora (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

ARBIPA sanctions alert
Kautilya3 (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * okay; I am interested to know why you made this revert. My edit was absolutely explained - it was copyediting. "Later they would become independent kingdom in mid 16th century tough continuing alliances" does not make any sense; it is missing several connecting words, and you mean "though" rather than "tough". Why did you revert it? What negative change did it introduce? Xuháska (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * sorry, I may have messed up the initial ping. Xuháska (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Xuhaska, I reverted it because you were replacing "kingdom" by "nation", which I am sure is not in the source. It appeared as if you were pushing some sort of nationalism. Hence the ARBIPA alert. Perhaps I over-reacted. But please note that some words have loaded meanings. I have now reinstated it without the objectionable term. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Gotcha; thanks for the explanation. Xuháska (talk) 08:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Chelsea Vowel for deletion
This is a courtesy message to notify you that the article Chelsea Vowel is being considered for deletion. All editors, including you, are welcome to discuss this at Articles for deletion/Chelsea Vowel& until a consensus is reached. The nomination and discussion are expected to focus on the quality of evidence and the policies and guidelines which are of concern. Please be aware that there are a number of arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion.

Users are encouraged to edit the article during the discussion, particularly in ways that address the concerns raised in that discussion. However, please do not attempt to remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article— doing so may be considered an act of bad faith and will not halt the deletion process. Thank you!  Velella  Velella Talk 20:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Chelsea Vowel


A tag has been placed on Chelsea Vowel, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.  Velella  Velella Talk 11:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am curious as to what grounds you have for insisting that this article is the same as the one previously deleted, beyond that they have the same name? Given that I was not editing then, am not an admin so have no ability to retrieve the old content, and have written an article full of many references that didn't exist for 1-2 years after the deletion discussion, it seems improbable. If you did genuinely nominate it merely because they have the same name, I would suggest reviewing the G4 speedy deletion criteria - that is not adequate evidence that it is a repost. If you do genuinely think it's a repost, I would like to know why. Xuháska (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jonah ibn Janah
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jonah ibn Janah you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jonah ibn Janah
The article Jonah ibn Janah you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Jonah ibn Janah for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, just a reminder that you haven't responded to the GA review. HaEr48 (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jonah ibn Janah
The article Jonah ibn Janah you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Jonah ibn Janah for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 08:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Zoe Todd
Would you mind looking at the article for Zoe Todd? -- Parkbenchmonster