User talk:Peter S.

This user may have left Wikipedia. Peter S. has not edited Wikipedia since July 2008. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

hey dude, how did you know what notes Michael was singing? Did you use software, or internal pitch recognition, or "perfect pitch"?

Hi there! I just listened and played the keys on my piano :-) By the way, get a user account so that I know who you are :-)

i need help... im trying to create a page but i don't kno how... talk 2 me --The lil lady with the hat 18:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've contacted a British magician about this article, but he doesn't appear to know aladin. Without a real name he can't check magic circle member records either, so he recommended me to contact Meir Yedid who publish the Magic Times for which he is supposed to have featured on the front cover according to his site. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Meir Yedid responded and said he was indeed on the cover of one of the issues, but they can't give me any further info on him. So I think he's a professional (yet obscure) magician. You can start NPOVing anything you think is overly promotional, but I think the article can stay. - 12:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome to Wikipedia! :-) I figured that a combined disambig-page for entries regarding both "Aladdin" and "Aladin" would be much easier for the users (less clicks, reaching goal faster), so I combined the two again. Hope you don't mind. Cheers! :-) Peter S. 02:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC) Sure, no problem. I also re-edited it to show the only correctly spelled words first (the magician and the astronomy software). JunCTionS 02:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like your reasoning for putting Chrismukkah in Category:Fictional holidays. I know alot of people do celebrate the holiday, which takes it out of the realm of fiction. It was actually celebrated long before The O.C. popularized it, and gave it a name. Yes, it is linked to other actually ficticious holidays, but Chrismukkah itself is not. That would be like putting tomacco in Category:Fictional vegetables, since it was originally featured in an episode of The Simpsons, or classifying cellular phones as fictional since Captain Kirk used something similar in the 1960s on Star Trek. Chrismukkah exists.

[[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 01:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well sorry if it's wrong, but it was in the categories "fictional" and "holidays", and all I did was tidy this up. Now that I read it correctly, I see that I'm wrong and it's no fictional holiday anyway. So my edit was based on someone other's wrong edit. I have removed my error again. Sorry. Peter S. 10:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I will have time to contribute to a new page as I am soon on annual leave. Also the consequences are to become addicted? Our office now has some fevered individuals who consult Wikipedia. I really appreciate your points at the end of the alkhemi discussion. Also I was finally inspired. If only such a free if challenging discussion can be the normal prevailing condition in the 'real' territories. Many thanks. Delarouism 16:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Cheers! :-) Peter S. 19:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Peter S. I've been working on some stuff over at List of IMAX venues. Please let me know what you think on the talk page. Thanks --RobbyPrather 06:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Peter S. I made a change to the list of Imax venues. I deleted the London, Ontario, Canada, venue as it is no longer in operation.

D'oh! Thanks for fixing my broken revert on King levitation (durn slow wikipedia, that's my excuse). Indeed, it was decided a while ago (and clearly there's considerable support from respectable wikipedians still) that exposure of magic secrets should be in articles. You'll probably notice that the magic vandal(s) attack in waves, and then quit for a week or two. This is another wave, so you can bet we'll see a bunch of vandalism of magic articles over the following few days. -- Finlay Mcwalter | Talk 23:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, cool. Perhaps the talk page should also reflect this consensus, cause I really wasn't sure. Cheers! :-) Peter S. 00:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I tried to answer for some rather "old" :) questions of yours on Talk:Push_to_talk#Interface.3F. Cheers, CsTom 19:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did that on purpose. Feel free to pull the lost information out of the history and save it somewhere other than the dab page. Tedernst | talk 20:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No one can prevent you from doing what you want. I don't believe it fits on the page per MoS:DP. Perhaps the talk page would be a good place to hold it? Tedernst | talk 20:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent stub! Tedernst | talk 21:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Russ, Template:Hndis currently has the ending period made a link (as seen here) and I traced that you did it. Can you explain me why - is there a special highly technical reason for that? Cheers! :-) Peter S. 02:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I did? Yes, I guess I did, although I had forgotten about it. I've seen some other templates that do this, and copied it. It makes it easier to access the template source directly if you are on a page that uses the template; that's all there is to it. --Russ Blau (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from calling people voting against you as sockpuppets. People CAN disagree with you, that doesn't mean you have to launch personal attacks against them. Thanks. --Ragib 21:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Ragib, you see I was *asking _if_* there are sockpuppets there. I never did any accusations, that's solely your interpretation. Let's continue the discussion at the original place. Peter S. 22:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And they've know been proven to be sockpuppets, so those of us who were saying it were not making personal attacks but simply saying what was truthful and needed to be said. DreamGuy 12:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I made the remark to Peter for terming everyone as a sockpuppet, the sockpuppet check shows the presence of socks, indeed. Peter, I'm eating my own words, and sorry for the initial misunderstanding. :) --Ragib 15:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sockpuppet and I find you accusation that I am very insulting. Believe it or not people can have opinions about things that don't match yours and not be involved in a grand conspiracy against you. Grandwazir 00:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "grandwizard", funny, aboutoxfordstudent said the very same thing. Well, we're gonna find out either way soon enough. Peter S. 01:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look the vote has been closed and I haven't been marked as a sockpuppet, what a surprise. Grandwazir 17:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because vote-closing admins cannot check sockpuppets, buddy. Nothing has been proven yet. But thanks for reminding me to start a check. Peter S. 19:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although vote-closing admins don't have check-user access, they do look for sockpuppet behavior and yet I still wasn't marked as one. In fact you are the only person accusing me of being one. Why don't you just apologise? Grandwazir 12:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote-closing admins do not really look for sockpuppet behaviour, that's the only valid conclusion from the fact that the first afd had 4 sockpuppets in it and the closing admin didn't find a single one. I've asked Jayjg for a check on you and everybody on the third afd a week ago [1] and so far haven't heard anything conclusive. Why is it so important to you to be liked by me? I'm just one of 100'000 wikipedia users and if you know you are not a sock, then why should it matter to you what I think? Peter S. 12:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not worried really if you like me or not but I don't like it when people attempt to discredit other contributers so they can get there own way. Making fun of my name isn't excatly good faith either. It is determental to the project when users start accusing each other like this and completely unnecessary. We are all on the same side in building this encyclopedia, it is just a shame that people forget that sometimes. Grandwazir 12:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creating this article was IMO a very poor idea. Please reconsider this kind of action. It has been tagged for afd and speedy delete as an attack page. DES ^(talk) 00:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DES. This is a really bad attempt. You were free to discuss anything in Talk:Aladin. Creating an attack page is not a good behavior for an editor. Thanks. --Ragib 00:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. The Aladin page was replaced with Aladdin (about the story), so I created a new one. I was trying to be fair. And by the way, "not good behaviour", that's pretty funny coming from you. Peter S. 01:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"funny coming from you", may I ask why? --Ragib 01:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't consider backing a con artist good behaviour. This is nothing personal, you were pretty fair in the discussion, but I'm disappointed that nobody was able to see thru the web of lies Aladin has spun. So there is a "no good behaviour"-award for everybody involved, please don't take this too personally. I took a look at some of your extensive list of edits and it looks like you gave the wikipedia really a lot of good input, so I bow my hat before you. Just try to question words closer and be more objective in the future, if it is a controversial subject, please. Peter S. 01:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I havn't thought about that. I just simply read the whole thing, and more users want it kept than deleted. If you suspect a sockpuppet or believe it was closed out of process, maybe try to list it on deletion review will help. --Ichiro 02:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, btw, very few people can check sockpuppets, I believe on the English wikipedia there's only about 5 or 6 admins that can do "checkuser" for sockpuppet voting. You can find this list [2] helpful. --Ichiro 02:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Peter S. 02:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You asked:

I was wondering if we should go forward to the official arbitration committee and tell them that we are disturbed by the lack of editorial quality in this respect and are planning to leave the project if this issue isn't addressed. What's your take on this?

That wouldn't do a thing at all whatsoever, other than have the committee say, "OK, don't let the door hit you on the way out." From the looks of the vote it appears -- at least to any ArbCommers who would look, if they'd bother to look -- that several active editors with useful contributions supported it. We know that there's obviously some clear sockpuppetry going on, and perhaps this guy himself andmaybe a few friends, but there's no way to prove it. You can't win every fight to the level you would hope. Heck, honestly, deletion isn;t as necessary now that most of the article was cut to pieces to only things that can be proven, which is next to nothing. We can certainly keep it at that level, which doesn;t do this guy much good as it's not the rave review he would have hoped, and if junk gets added we can revert to the small version. Hopefully later sometime when the controversy dies down we can just redirect it to Aladdin (or the disambiguation file for that). DreamGuy 03:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And then you said:

Hi Krash, like you too probably, I'm deeply disappointed by the result the general wikipedia community had with the vote on Aladdin. We are both respectable editors with many many edits, and I was wondering if we should go forward to the official arbitration committee and tell them that we are disturbed by the lack of editorial quality in this respect and are planning to leave the project if this issue isn't addressed. What's your take on this? Peter S. 01:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Disappointed, yes. I'm too apolitical to do ultimatums or threats. My frustration with WikiProject Magic comes and goes and sometimes I just leave it all alone for a while.

There's more here than meets the eye. I've been watching List of magicians almost compulsively for the last 6 months or so but it wasn't until I started monitoring the sockpuppetry from the Aladin discussion that I noticed a really fascinating pattern. Check out the edit history and pay close attention to all of the red users and look at their respective edit histories. It would appear to me that one person or a few people (or – least likely, but possible – a bunch of individuals) is/are creating new accounts, each to start an article about some amateur/nightclub magician, slip it onto the list, and then disappear from Wikipedia.

I mentioned something about this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aladin that fell on deaf ears:

It would appear to me that Magicsucks (who uploaded the image) might be related the same anon user(s) (172.215.214.127, 172.200.195.231) who started and added to this page one day before Magicsucks registered. Additional users (Themeat, Waikiwai, and the curiously-named user Selfpublicitysucks) seem to have registered just to contribute exclusively to the article only to pull a disappearing act. Suspicious activity. And then there's Thegirlinwhite, another user who seems to have registered just to add to the article and also place references to aladin into various articles. She seems to have stuck around a little longer. -- Krash 17:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are additional registered user names that I suspect being part of this "ring", but their mention wasn't relevant to the Aladin discussion. (I, again, invite you to form your own conclusions from the last 200 or so edits at List of magicians.) I guess the thing that really sticks in my craw about this whole thing is that the circumstances by which the Aladin article was created shows obvious use of sockpuppets or other bad faith and the edit history at List of magicians shows that this is not an isolated situation. It would be my hope that others could look into this and draw their own conclusions. -- Krash 04:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hrmmm... Interesting... Just another one of those inherent flaws of Wikipedia's openness that spammers are taking advantage of. If you need someone to help out if you figure out what to do, let me know. I'm always on the lookout to stomp spammers and socks. DreamGuy 07:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about him being "strategy consultant for the firm alkhemi" still seems inaccurate. According to its website he is founder and CEO. josh (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Josh, alkhemi is his own firm, he's probably its only employee, so he can name himself anything he wants. "Chairman of the board", "vice president of international business relations", whatever. The article about alkhemi was deleted a few months back, I don't think that a mention of this "company" and his relation to it really helps putting things into the right perspective. Peter S. 17:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, do you have specific userids you suspect are sockpuppets? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, Delete and Redirect is the last thing you want... Delete erases the talk page comments, and all the proof of sockpuppeting and hoaxing by editors goes with it. I know you don;t want that stuff erases. You want a plain old redirect with no deletion. DreamGuy 00:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DG, actually, I don't care about the details, I just want a redirect at the end. I'll update my vote. Peter S. 01:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course now it really sucks that we have people blatantly lying and claiming that consensus was to keep the article as an article when the votes to delete completely or redirect so the content was erased clearly had consensus. It's nonsense like that that makes me lose faith in this place, when people can be arguing such nonsense and tricking other people into following it. DreamGuy 10:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter. Sorry, I just noticed your update - I've been away for a couple of days, and my Talk: page is always very busy. That's a complicated request, I'll try to get to it on Monday if possible. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter. Well, it appears, based on the technical evidence, that Tiksustoo, Autumnleaf, Robsmommy, Grroin, Aloodum, and Aboutoxfordstudent are all sockpuppets. The list may not be entirely complete. Regarding the others, either there's no information about them, or (for the regular Wikipedia contributors) they're obviously not sockpuppets. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay, thanks, you have help a lot, fantastic work, thanks! Peter S. 23:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for having ago at you for your accusations of sockpuppetry. As for the Aladin article, I think JJay's done a good job uncovering correct and factual evidence. It sounds odd but I was questioning the authenticity of aladin at a magician forum, but they didn’t give me an answer either way. There is evidence that suggests he exists and is notable but that’s all journalistic (although some of it being from journalists in well-respected newspapers.) I’ll continue with my checks although not as whole heartedly just to follow it through and uncover the truth. By all means take it to another deletion vote if you want to. Englishrose 23:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Englishrose, thanks, I will. Peter S. 23:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lo and Behold!!! If Aloodum (talk · contribs) is a sock of the aladin-fans, then certainly it raises some questions. Because he is also the person who, quite eagerly, added the Aladin-Abul Fateh link [3]. Could it be aladin himself? --Ragib 07:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. AfD is only about whether the article should be deleted or not. If enough people don't want it deleted, then they can work out whether to keep or redirect it on the talk, without AfD. AfD should never be used as precedent to prevent a redirect/merge and redirect, however. Johnleemk | Talk 03:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Peter, would appreciate it if you'd hop in and revert the disambig and new (magician) articles if the gang of people breaking policies and ignoring consensus keep restoring them. It's insane that these people keep trying to declare that no consensus to delete the talk page and history when people were directly voting keep but only with the understanding that it'd be redirected can lie and pretend that keep means it can't be redirected. A handful of them seem deadset on imposing their will on this encyclopedia despite the fact that they were outnumbered. At this point we have to stand up and not let them get away with it, as it will never end otherwise. DreamGuy 12:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THe site is indeed spam; rccl.com is RCL's official website, not royalcarib.com.

I do realize that they aren't the songs they are named to be, but I was bored one night, and noticed that someone had put nocturne of shadow in the nocturne entry... so i decided to finish the deal... Maybe people will go around searching for songs of said names...

And yea, there is an entire Zelda Wiki, did you know? http://wiki.zeldauniverse.net. The people over at Universe run it, a community to which I am a member.

Thanks for dropping me a line.

I'm not assuming that you'll support my position and I'm not assuming you'll even participate in the AfDs. I just need someone with a thread of sense to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Progressive Thinker and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You Say Party! We Say Die! and assure me that I'm supporting the right side for the right reasons. -- Krash (Talk) 13:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was glad to help out, and I even sided with you on those articles. Cheers, Peter S. 23:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fun 100 -- Krash (Talk) 05:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake, I'm very new at this and didn't read the article properly. The solution only produces a image of the frame that was/is on screen. I thought that part of the article was about the problem of not being able to capture an image from a video using the Print Screen button. I have now realised that part of the article was higher up titled "Hardware overlays" Maybe you could add my solution of the problem of the blank rectangle. Standardelephant

Peter: thought you might want to take note of Talk:List of sitcoms

You said;

Hi, you added a cleanup tag to mailinator here: [1], but didn't explain your 
reasons in the history or talk page. Why do you think the article should be 
cleaned up? Thanks and Cheers! :-) Peter S. 00:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It reads like it was written by the owner of Mailinator. Didn't really seem like an encyclopedia entry to me.. Of course I'm too lazy to rewrite it at this time :). It has been slightly cleaned since I added that tag though, feel free to remove it if you think it should be :) -Andrew 03:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_fictional_universes#Motion_to_Revise FrankB 14:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I commented out the warning to comply with Wikipedia's Manual of Style and to avoid self-references. I don't think that it's necessary to have the warning displayed to everybody who reads the article, because it's only for editors. And I think that if that problem user still refuses to discuss his changes, you should open an RfC. — getcrunk what?! 12:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure; an article RfC could be opened, to deal with article problems and not necessarily this on user that keeps switching IPs. However, I think that problem has ended, so far the user hasn't edited List of music video directors. — getcrunk what?! 13:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have certainly attempted to talk with him. I'm not sure about what can be done besides simply reverting his edits on sight. A big commented message wouldn't hurt, too. — getcrunk what?! 14:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are in agreement that those things are not a film, and probably shouldn't be marked as such. I'm a stub-sorter, and {tl|film-stub}} is much different than {{filming-stub}}, so I thought that the articles should match that. At the time, it seemed like a good idea. However, you do have a good point about having two different extensions for essentially the same topic. I don't think I would have a huge problem with you changing them back. However, I've already changed all the articles that linked to them to use 'filming', so you'll have to change them all back. Thanks for letting me know about this, and I think that your reasoning is valid. Have a great day and happy editing! ~ Amalas rawr^{=^_^=} 20:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed them manually by going to the "What links here" link. There's actually not as many of them as I thought, so it shouldn't be too bad. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 00:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the Disney "wienie" article to Wienie (Disney) and reinstated the redirect from Wienie to Wiener, because the Disney meaning is not sufficiently well-known to be the only article named "wienie." (or "wiener," etc.) —tregoweth (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is where i post stuff to you. I'm not sure

I removed that Steve because he's not a music video director.

No probs. Sorry

& thanks 4 telling me about the discussion thing. :)

Many thanks. I was wondering how to sign

Baby16 23:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know i might seem stupid but i can't understand how to upload pictures. And since i don't have anyone to explain it to me. & i don't know any other Wikipedians I was wondering if you could tell me how to in layman's terms please? And sorry if i'm bothering you or wasting your time.

Baby16 23:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did I drop academic section? Because the provided links are to college homepages and say nothing about digital pens. `'mikka (t) 15:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      /\

Baby16 21:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Peter, I just wanted to let you know that I reverted your recent edit and have explained why on the discussion page. I hope that you'll be inclined to agree, but if not, please feel free to respond there. Just thought you'd appreciate being told first instead of finding out! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 17:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've noticed that you have a fair amount of edits on the filmmaking articles, and I just thought that I'd personally invite you to join WikiProject Filmmaking if you are interested. We'd love to have you join us in working to collaboratively improve the standards and quality of the filmmaking articles. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 21:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on your recent edits to the Red article(s). Unfortunately this camera seems to be a rallying point for anyone with so much as an opinion on the film/digital divide, so it seems unlikely to abate in the near future - at least until the camera ships! But just wanted to let you know that your work is supported. Girolamo Savonarola 21:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciate it :-) Peter S. 11:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no problem with renaming the article formerly known as DisneySpeak to some other title. I just didn't like the term "DisneySpeak" because it's a neologism. "Disney jargon" also doesn't sound right to me, because the terms don't broadly apply to all of Disney. Any other ideas on what we can call it? - Brian Kendig 22:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, according to this, you deleted the article for Veoh about a month ago. Can you tell me why this happened or show me a link to the deletion discussion? Thanks. Peter S. 18:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was speedily deleted after being marked with {{db-web}}. The article didn't assert notability or provide sources for information referenced. You can bring it up for deletion review, if you like. I can also supply a copy of the article at the time of deletion if you would like that. (aeropagitica) 19:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. The article is about a website that just started and it's possible that it wasn't really notable at its time. I think that things have changed, though. How about if we reinstate it and do a regular vfd at the moment when somebody still thinks it is not notable? Peter S. 23:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned earlier, please take this to deletion review if you want to recreate the article and have a business case for doing so. Alternatively, you can be bold and recreate the article, this time providing sources and references as per WP:RS and ensuring the the company/website complies with the criteria set out in WP:CORP/ WP:WEB. Best to do so on a user sub-page and have someone review it beforehand. You can ask for assistance at the help desk, if required. (aeropagitica) 23:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Are we talking about the same article that can still be viewed here: [4]? Can you tell me what is wrong with this article? Is it possible that the speedy deletion process has been applied to a vandalized version of the article? Because I can really not see anything wrong with it. There are many mentions of it in the nytimes alone: [5]. Why does the community go forward with a speedy deletion of an not-brandnew article whose notability can be easily confirmed? Could you please re-instated it from that copy you have access to? Thanks a million. Peter S. 00:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I told you earlier, the article failed to assert the notability of its subject and also failed to provide sources and references. The age of the article is irrelevant, as all articles are under perpetual review and can be deleted or brought to Featured Article status depending upon the efforts of editors and the criteria for each status. You have already had the options for recreation presented to you, please make your choice. I'm about to go off-line. (aeropagitica) 00:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your removal of the prohibition on forum external links. We generally don't make policy to accommodate a single link on a single page, no matter how much one editor wants it. Forums were added to WP:EL back in April, and were extensively discussed on the project Talk page before they were added, where consensus was reached. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 14:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted that you have previously contributed to podcasting related material on Wikipedia. If you're interested, I have proposed a Wikiproject on podcasting. If you'd like to see this happen go to the proposal page and find podcasting, then just add your name under 'interested users'. Cheers!Ganfon 22:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You recently edited the article. It's been proposed for deletion and still needs a good deal of wikifying or it wont survive.DGG 00:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You probably want to target Wikipedia:WikiProjects for that idea. They already have large groups of users collaborating on articles within a certain topic and they have the most incentive to keep an eye on articles in their project. The problem is volume. Even if I just keep an eye on the articles I created (not all the ones I have watchlisted), it's a fulltime job to keep up with the changes. I can't imagine how it would be with more general topics. I'm sure there's at least one article in there with some unfixed vandalism, but it would take me at least a day to find it. That's why I hope the stable versions feature will be implemented soon. It would save all of us a lot of trouble. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Template talk:Aircontent#Template in conflict with regular section order for a response to your changes and comments. Thanks. - BillCJ 16:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Best videogame, by RockMFR (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Best videogame is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Best videogame, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Best videogame itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Best videogames, by RockMFR (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Best videogames is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Best videogames, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Best videogames itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've currently got a 3RR requested lined up for Digi, and I suspect that James is a sock puppet. However, at the moment, I'm at risk for 3RR myself if I do anything else. Care to rectify the problem? If either of them touches the article again within the next couple of hours, it's a guaranteed 3RR for either (or both). I'm also gonna try to call in some other interested editors to weigh in and watch the article. Girolamo Savonarola 22:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I might help you, but I'm not that much around. Long-term quality is the goal imho, not the short-term listing/unlisting. I wrote a nice answer in the article talk, which I hope might calm the waters again. Cheers, Peter S. 21:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Dailies, 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 explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Jeepday (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response at User_talk:Jeepday#Dailies Jeepday (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been tagged as unreferenced for over year, it fails WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, etc in it's current version. I only place {{prod}} on articles that I have searched for references on and I beleive will not survive Articles for Deletion. If you beleive that there are 900,000 references on google Diff for this article, it should not a problem to add one or two of them Diff. As it says on the talk page Therefore, any article written about film dalies must always contain original research or unverified claims. With so many unknowns, it is almost impossible to write this article in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Robert Elliott December 2006 Diff, which leads me to no expectation that this article will ever meet Wikipedia Policy, and a low likelihood it will pass WP:AFD. Normally I would take this to AFD now but you sound like you would like the opportunity to try to improve the article before I take it to AFD. Do you think you will be able to "come across" a some references by tomorrow? Jeepday (talk) 04:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response at User_talk:Jeepday#Dailies Jeepday (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "external links", because the Logic Studio website is already listed in the infobox. No need for posting that link twice. --KAMiKAZOW 18:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what’s the point of the Website line in the infobox? --KAMiKAZOW 23:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Wienie (Disney), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Vitra Logo.gif. 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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) 03:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You originally created this as redirect to Sam Peckinpah's "Salad Days" - its been recently hi-jacked by IP editor to discuss the phrase (including mention of non-notable shop, which I've removed) - think it might actually make it as article / stub, and was wondering if you have a ref' for it being the alternate name for that sketch which could be added with wikilink back to article. Alternatively if you think its hopeless and want to turn it back into redirect, I won't object. -Hunting dog (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General speaking, it is a very bad idea to add unsourced information to articles, particularly if you are unsure if what you are adding is correct. In particular, I refer to [6] where you added misleading information to the article. Most download managers support multi source downloading from multiple servers, and have for a very long time (IIRC before P2P really became popular). According to the GetRight history [7] filemirrors.com was started in 2001 but IIRC, there was file mirror searching prior to that using archie servers. (There was also a list for 'common' stuff like Tucows and other things I can't remember). Go!Zilla when it first added segmented downloading was notorious for making a large number of connections to one server but multiple servers were used if they were known. Nil Einne (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Panasonic AG-HVX200, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panasonic AG-DVC7. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ejfetters (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Super Dimension Fortress. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Dimension Fortress (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Barcelona album cover.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 "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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 08:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Think thank. Since you had some involvement with the Think thank redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Student7 (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Filmizing 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filmizing 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.. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philosophical concepts, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. fgnievinski (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mac os history. Since you had some involvement with the Mac os history redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect N64 zelda. Since you had some involvement with the N64 zelda redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Zelda n64. Since you had some involvement with the Zelda n64 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of IMAX venues 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of IMAX venues (3rd 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 notice from the top of the article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Jawbone (company), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of IMAX venues 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of IMAX venues (4th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Let'srun (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]