User talk:Rreagan007

the last edit didn't seem to work. the reference is not showing up. --AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this is the very first wikipedia article I've ever tried doing from scratch. I'm still trying to figure out some of the formatting for things like footnotes. I appreciate your help.

no problem. i've created 2 articles on my own and they are kinda crappy. i think i'm just going to stick to editing. did you see the message on the talk page for the school? p.s. did you go to this school? i think my high school used to play them. we played against RCA all the time and Friendship once in a while.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I did go to this school in 11th and 12th grade. And actually I went to RCA before that. Where did you go to school? I take it from your name you're agnostic now. I got ya beat, I'm an athiest. Guess those 14 years of Christian exucation just didn't take very well.

I went to Faith Christian Academy in Goldsboro. I know aloooot of agnostics and atheists that use to go to christian schools/colleges...most of my friends from college won't step foot in a church.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember going down to Faith for games at RCA. Yeah I'm with your friends, church is just about the last place I want to go.

I removed the brackets from the NCCSA because there is no article for them and it stands out in red. Are you planning on making an article?--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks better as an acronym even though there is no article. And if you click on it you can still see the full name even though there is no article. Hopefully someone will do an article on it eventually.

Someone tagged the article with notability and pov. I removed the POV, but you need to add references in the article in order for the notability tag to be removed.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest looking over the info you're copying and pasting from the school's website. Remove the POV material before adding the info to the article to avoid having the article tagged for POV. Also, I'd suggest doing this on the other articles like Raleigh Christian Academy, etc.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

That link may have some interest here and there, but adding the same link to a large number of pages, especially where the info on the page linked to is not directly linked to the subject (it is an overview page of the archives), is certainly not according to our external links guideline. Please stop. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link I was adding was to add a source for the information on the individual pages as someone tagged one of them for not giving any sources for the information. Also, on some of the pages the external link that was there no longer works and when you are undoing the new link you're reverting back to a link that no longer works. I don't want to violate the link policy, but I think this one link is very relevant and belongs on each individual tournament page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rreagan007 (talk • contribs)

When I click the link I don't get any direct information, I have to click on to find more about the subject (I refer to WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, point 14). Indeed, there are no references in the document, but there must be directly relevant information, either on that server, or on news servers from the area. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well then can I assume that if I link to the page with the specific information directly instead of the main archive page that would be acceptable to you?{{subst:unsigned"|Rreagan007}}

That sounds like a good plan, though it might even be better to use it as a citation, see WP:CITE and WP:FOOT. Then it really attributes information in the document. Hope this helps, happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am here to dispute your editing of the link to the UNC Global website (global.unc.edu). Both past UNC-CH Chancellor Moeser and current Chancellor Thorp have made it their mission to promote and grow UNC's reputation as a global university. UNC has one of the largest percentage of students studying abroad of any university in the nation and is an increasingly popular destination for foreign students and professors to visit. More importantly, however, one need only interact with the Carolina community to realize how well-versed and aware the student body is of current international affairs and how important their global education is to them. In order to reflect this aspect of the university, as well as promote the future direction of this great institution, I feel that a link to UNC Global is an integral addition to the UNC-CH wiki. I would very much like to hear your arguments otherwise before you remove the link. Thank-you very much - Rmitch3

Thanks for uploading Image:2008acctournament.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:2003acctournament.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Unc.seal.blue.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Unc.seal.blue.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do keep reverting to a poorer quality image? please stop. --Jerm (^Talk/ _Contrib) 23:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image is not poorer quality. If you compare the two, you will see that it's actually a better quality image. It's also in Carolina blue instead of black which is more authentic and is more aesthetically pleasing. Is there some reason you prefer the black seal to the Carolina blue one?

If you read the document that the image came from it is supposed to be black. Wikipedia is not for advertisement so your argument that it is "more aesthetically pleasing" is incorrect. --130.218.10.1 (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went back and read the source you were referring to, and it only specifies black if the seal is used to "indicate accomplishment in or on behalf of the University." That's not the use here. If you look at the other source for the blue seal here you will see that the university uses the seal in both black and blue. Since both colors have equal value in terms of authenticity and use, I think the fact that the blue seal looks better on the article page should tip the scale in its favor, unless you have a better reason to pick one over the other.

Please stop reverting. The version you seem to be reverting to has broken transparency, is the wrong shade of blue, is missing the registered trademark logo, and is not that approved by the University's licensing department. If you have a good reason why such a logo should be used, even though it may violate trademark and copyright laws, please discuss it on Image talk:Unc.seal.blue.png. Thank you. Yellowspacehopper (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images are only allowed in the main article space, not in templates, unfortunately, so the shield you added has had to be removed. See WP:NONFREE policy #9. 152.2.133.109 (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Most British people and many people internationally write dates in day-month-year order, e.g., 12 December 1904. Most Americans use month-day-year order, e.g., December 12, 1904. If the article is about an American topic, use month-day-year. If it is a British or European topic, use day-month-year. If neither, leave it as originally written. Many Americans or British people take offence if an article about their country, written in their local version of English, is changed around to a version they don't use. So please do not do that.

Dates are usually enclosed in two square brackets, as in [[12 December]] or [[December 12]]. This means that you can set your preferences (if you look around your screen you'll see the word preferences; click on it and follow the instructions) to ensure that you see all dates in the format you want, whether date-month-year, month-date-year or yyyy-mm-dd. The general rules on how Wikipedia articles are written can be seen in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Rules specific to dates and numbers can be seen in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on the web's fastest growing encyclopædia (or encyclopedia, if you write it that way!). Thank you. 152.2.133.109 (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the bit about the pep bands. I just removed the words "Olympic sports" as you covered the scope with "26 other sports," so that we don't have to explain what Olympics sports mean (especially as basketball is in the Olympics, lacrosse isn't, and baseball won't be soon). Hope that was OK! Hippo (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rreagan007 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Newshounddog (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to my request for clarification at the sockpuppet case page: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rreagan007. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not deny that I sometimes edit from that IP address instead of logging in, but I do not do that for bad purposes. Usually I either just forget to log in, or I have several different browsers open and I'm logged in on 1 browser and just don't remember to log into the other 1. I have looked at the talk page for the IP address and I do see the negitive stuff you are referring to. But none of the vandalism from this IP address was done by me. I did not even start editing wikipedia articles at all until January of this year, and the vandalism I saw was all from before that. I'm also not familiar with how IP addresses work, but it might be possible that more than 1 person shares this IP address. Again, I have never intentionally vandalised any wikipedia page, and none of the edits from this IP address could have been done by me before January 2008. If you have any questions about this for me please feel free to ask. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my closing comments at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rreagan007. To clarify: if you want to stay logged in on multiple tabs or window when you edit, click on the "remember me" box when you login. That automatically logs you in even on tabs you have not yet opened on that computer, and avoids the situation where you are logged in to Wikipedia on one window but logged out on another window. Yechiel (Shalom) 21:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re this, please don't change the ratings of project not involved in. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)rat[reply]

Sorry, I was just trying to help. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I double-checked before reverting, but I took off your capitalizaton of "States". Capitalizing it is 18th century usage.

Happy editing!

Robert A.West (Talk) 15:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just for your information, "Types of regulation" is correct. English does not inflect adjectives and adjectival phrases as would, say, French or German. Thus, "Attorneys General," not "Attorneys Generals." Moreover, we are talking about "regulation" as an abstraction, which always takes an indefinite number: Laws against felons' possessing firearms are a type of regulation, even if that type comprises five laws and twenty administrative rules.

Again, Happy editing!

Robert A.West (Talk) 15:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm sure you meant well, your revisions to the image arrangement on the Earth page led to some issues on my browser. Aligning the image with the table resulted in an ugly displacement in my browser, so it was not an improvement. You also move the image showing the relative sizes of the planets out of the section where the size was being discussed. That was also unhelpful. I would greatly appreciate it if you could be more careful; this page has gone through a lot of massaging over time before it achieved a satisfactory look. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for just jumping in like that and changing stuff around. I can see you've done a lot of work on astronomy pages and the Earth page in particular, so I will certainly defer to your judgment on this. However, the reason I tried to rearrange some of the images on the Earth page was because the page looked extremely haphazard in its arrangement, especially for a featured article. I know the article is very well written, but I still think having the 2 pictures and 2 tables in the arrangement they're in now does not look very good. Perhaps the pictures and tables could go on top of each other instead of side by side? I leave it for you to decide. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's been difficult to come up with an ideal arrangement that both keeps the material with the subject matter and still avoids collisions at differing widths, font settings and browser types. Many different arrangements have been attempted. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twice now you have moved the sardine image from the beginning of the "Feeding" section to the end of the previous section, claiming MOS. This puts the image in the wrong section and pushes the "Feeding" header from left alignment to an ugly mid-page position (in FF3). I can't believe that even MoS dictates which section an image should be in, if it does, please give be a link.

Alternatively, and probably better, tell me what's wrong with the original position, with an MoS link, so that I can fix the problem myself without your doubtless well-intended but unhelpful moves. jimfbleak (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I've lowered the sardines to after opening para, but kept left aligned so images still alternate. That should comply with MoS, but if an problems, let me know jimfbleak (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed on Rror's talk page:

"Dude, my edits are the truth. I provided a reference. In issue #47 of DC Presents, Superman is sucked into Eternia (the He-Man universe) and goes galevanting about with He-Man. In issue #48, a brief biography of He-Man or Prince Adam is given and when asked of his mother's whereabouts he says "I don't know, probably on Mars selling astro turf"

Septimus1337 (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

   Really? Lol. Sorry for reverting then :) Rror (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)"

220.239.187.33 (talk) 04:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I set up the following new article North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball seasons and I thought you might be interested in helping improve it. It is also up for a DYK so any help in ensuring that it gets DYK status would be appreciated. Thanks. Remember (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi, i readded my edits. i'm sorry, but we are now in a dispute. the public ivy part of the article is non-nuetral point of view unless properly cited. as you said, it's the only way to let people know it's a highly regarded state sponsored school. unfortunately, the wiki page is not a place to talk that up. that's more for marketing firms. here, on wiki, we just want to present the information accuratly and nuetrally. i did all the edits in good faith. you unedited them for your reasons. the abbreviations are accurate and how the school is listed in unc publications. there is no reason to leave them off. they are official and recognized by the board of governors. we can resolve the dispute a better way, than you just randomly taking the article and making how you want it. i'd really like to see it move to featured article. please note, it was not promoted to featured article. perhaps, because it was not nuetral enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holla213 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i've also tried to lock the page to start a dispute resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holla213 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, will look into that soon. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've uploaded Image:Image:Ravenscroft logo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

You've uploaded Image:Image:Rca logo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thanks for uploading Image:Durham academy logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Uncwseal.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you noticed what I'm trying to do. I figure the 1995 and 2000 games will have enough information available to easily get featured status, and it's been my plan since early this year. I hope to have it done by next summer, but we'll see. 1993 Independence Bowl and 2000 Sugar Bowl are GANs right now, but we'll see how quickly I can do that. Thanks for noticing. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for letting me know. Tompw (talk) (review) 10:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Messier Leadership Award has already had a peer review, why does it need another? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your recent edit of Speer. I do have two comments:

• The text you used says "German: pronounced /ˈʃpær/", but the link is to IPA for English. Did you mean to give the English pronunciation (in which case, the text before the link should be changed), or did you mean to give the German pronunciation (in which case, the link, at least, should change)? Pardon my uncertainty on this point, as I have no expertise whatsoever with IPA but, Ich spreche und lese ein wenig vom Deutschen. I won't make a change, but encourage you to review and, if needed, correct or clarify your entry. Sorry again if I'm on the wrong track here.
  • Thanks for explaining things - it sounds good to me. Best regards,

--Joe Sperrazza (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The text you replaced, "German "spear", in my opinion, did have value. I'm putting that information (in a slighty different form ^[1]), into the article.

Thanks again! --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good day. I just noticed that you added a unreferenced section tag at Canada#Provinces and territories. While that is quite true, is there something in particular you think a citation is required for. Most of the content is pretty obvious, ordinary facts that are covered in Canada#References. As a featured article, I think you should express your precise concerns at Talk:Canada. Thanks, DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Wcsr logo.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your vote at Roman Catholic Church. I am sorry to inform you that we failed FAC but will again be at peer review in a few weeks to sort things out. Hopefully we will make it through next time. We will be contacting all supporters and opposers of the article when we open the next peer review to hopefully get all issues addressed and hashed out before the next FAC try. Thanks again for your time and attention to this important article. NancyHeise ^talk 01:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello... FYI, your edit has been reverted again. If the discussion concludes with an agreement that it should be in bold, I'll certainly accept that. However, given that it is disputed the common practice is to keep disputed material/edits out until a consensus is reached. Hope this helps resolve matters in the short term. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saw you updated the featured topic checklist with this article. Unfortunately, it's only a good article candidate at this point, not a good article yet. Of course, that could change once someone reviews it. :) JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops sorry, I guess I jumped the gun there. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be a major contributor to nominate an article, or a set of articles, for any rank. Actually, you don't have to have contributed at all. If you believe in the articles, then go ahead an nominated them for Good Topic status. The only article I have substantially worked on is Spider-Man 3. The first film article I worked a bit, but I left after some disagreement with a supposed "producer" (or whomever) came to Wikipedia and started terrorizing the page with his horrible grammar while he tried to "correct" all the mistakes. I haven't worked on the second one that much either, nor the "film series" page. I made some contribs, but not that many. I'm not really aware of the shape of any of those articles, behind SP3. If you think they're good enough, then you should go ahead and nominate them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid oppose. There is no policy, guideline, or even an essay that says you need "the blessing of the contributors" for such a nomination. It's "nice" to do, but there is no obligation as they don't own the articles in question. I don't want to nominate them because I haven't read them in a long time, and I don't have the time right now (end of the school semester) to re-read them all and check to make sure they still meet the GA criteria. That, and be the one to monitor the GT nomination. If you nominate I'll keep an eye on it and rebut anyone that claims you need "major contributor approval".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're too quick for me; you made most of the updates I was going to do. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Dick Baddour 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 about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. FlyingToaster 20:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I've submitted 2006 Gator Bowl as a FAC. Any comments, questions, or support you'd offer would be appreciated. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any comments, they'd be useful. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrah! Our first bowl win in, well, three years. It's a good feeling. To celebrate, I've submitted another Virginia Tech bowl game FAC. Anything you'd care to add to the discussion would be appreciated. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rreagan007. I see your most recent edit to British empire moves the images above the subheadings. I understand this may help word placement, but per WP:MOSIMAGES and Wikipedia:Access#Images, they should begin below the subheadings. --Moni3 (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MERRY CHRISTMAS (or other winter holiday) AND A HAPPY GAMEDAY

--B (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, a image you have recently been discussing on List of Presidents of the United States has been put up for deletion, your comments are welcome. -Marcusmax(speak) 16:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a thread on the administrators' noticeboard which may concern you. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Lyrics. CrazyPaco (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Cardinal gibbons logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Ruby Supernatural.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Ruby Supernatural.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining the UNC-Ch wikiproject. Any help you can lend to make this a success is most appreciated. Go Tar Heels! Remember (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm preparing 2009 Orange Bowl for FAC, and was hoping you've got the time to take a quick look at it before I submit it. Any comments, questions or things you think should be fixed would be helpful. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Cary acamedy logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, to point something else out, it's 1/3 that the topics are actually getting promoted/demoted on, not 33%. In reality this is all a bit irrelevant because we'd need a topic of 300 articles for it to make a difference, but there you go, just thought it was more accurate - rst20xx (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah of course, 100 articles, not 300! Duhhhh. There should never be a topic with 100 articles, that's way too big and the topic should be split, but anyway, I'm going to change it back, BECAUSE... we actually originally discussed 1/3 :D - rst20xx (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm not sure, that's probably the best example but it might be better off broken up into groups or periods. ANYWAY! We'll have to wait and see... rst20xx (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have implemented an Infobox Scientist in the lead of the Joseph Priestley article, effectively right-aligning the much-disputed placement of the image and left my rationales on Talk:Joseph Priestley. Because I strenuously disagree with the alleged consensus about violating guidelines about image placement and consensus across a wide body of other articles, I have offered to open an RfC for more editors' involvement. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A RfC has been opened to discuss the issue of alignment of the lead image on the Joseph Priestley article. Because you have previously commented or been involved with this issue, your input is requested. Please stop by Talk:Joseph_Priestley#RfC_on_lead_image_alignment and leave any feedback you may have. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put our heads together to think about how to summarize and move this debate over to MoS since it seems we've hit the wall on the RfC. I'll watch your talk page. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Sam and dean winchester.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 00:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest you place a request at WP:RM which can then be used as a forum for discussion. If a redirect eventually needs deletion after consensus is reached on the "right" name for the article then any administrator can be contacted to complete the move. It's a much better idea to gain a consensus for the title rather than seeing it be continually moved around. Hope that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Zachariah supernatural.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 03:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say in WP:MOSDASH that en dashes should not be spaced in article titles? This would affect hundreds of articles, and would create ambiguity problems. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Spacing: All disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except when there is a space within either one or both of the items (the New York – Sydney flight; the New Zealand – South Africa grand final; June 3, 1888 – August 18, 1940, but June–August 1940)." Dabomb87 (talk) 03:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thank you for your politeness and understanding. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a specific interest in dermatology? If so, I am always looking for more help ;) Regardless, thank you for your work on wikipedia! ---kilbad (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got two GANs waiting for review, then I'll have completed the Virginia Tech Hokies bowl games featured article. If you have the time, could you review one of the two remaining articles: 1998 Music City Bowl or 2001 Gator Bowl? Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you took a glance at Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech. I'd like for it to be a featured article; any thoughts as to what could be improved towards that end? One that I know off the bat is that it needs alt text. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Reagan,

I realise that the article in question has numerous issues, and thank you for expanding it and trying to deal with them, but for future reference, please refrain firstly from marking significant (and in your case, massive) edits as "minor"; secondly and more seriously, heavy promotion of a point of view so offensive to many, presenting Paul's "negative view of sexuality" as a fact.

Yours sincerely, Kan8eDie (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Anna Milton.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. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Jo Harvelle.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. FileBot (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Neuse baptist.png. 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. FileBot (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going over the quotation marks there. I though I had been following policy by switching them to the outside. But I undid you edit to the summary. I just think the numbers for cities and counties are too much detail for the summary, which already has a lot about cities. Thoughts?-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 22:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another Wikipedia article that states, unsupported, that something is "British English" is not valid criteria or proof. I looked in several dictionaries, none of which say in anyway that the word "burgled" is an English/British term and the word "burglarized" is American. In fact, most recognize the spelling "burglarised" as a British spelling without mentioning at all the word "burgled". Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. I work fast, don't I? Check it out.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That is a very good question, and although I love to be consistent on most things, wouldn't that mean I would have to delete the current nomination and resubmit it as a different article? Or is there a way around that?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rreagan, the iconization of logos is not permitted per the last paragraph of WP:MOSLOGO. That guideline is pretty unequivocal. It's fine to use the logo in full form, but to reduce it into a tiny icon is against the guideline. You're taking a logo from it's full size and reducing its pixel coverage 87% into an icon. As the guideline says, "Use of such images as icons is nearly always prohibited".

I don't have a problem with the NC logo being used in appropriate places. The university's sports logo is not appropriate for the infobox on the entire university. That's effectively saying that the sports department is more important than any other department within the university. The various different highly regarded programs at NC Chapel Hill (see here for just one school) would be highly insulted at that. It would be akin to putting the Marlboro logo on the infobox for the Altria article. It isn't necessary for people to understand what article they arrived at, it's mis-representative of the entire university, and it violates our guideline. There's really no wiggle room here. I'm sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, as Spider-Man 2 has just been delisted as GA, the Spider-Man films good topic now has 3 months from the date of delisting, or until 12 January, to get this article back to GA, or the whole topic could be nominated for demotion - rst20xx (talk) 13:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Alien (franchise), even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. magnius (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello mate. I've not been on Wikipedia for ages, but I've wandered back in the last few days and immediately run into this Magnius guy. I notice you've had words with him in the last day or so. Is he known for being a tool, do you know? Or is he basically okay but just doesn't express himself all that well? No problem if you don't know. Cheers anyway, Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this discussion [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your recent edits, I thought you might be interested in helping me bring North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball seasons up to GA status. Let me know if you are interested. Remember (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I was a bit hasty! You are clearly right - though I don't think it's a very common name for it. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 20:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Supernatural S4 DVD.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. Skier Dude (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing this article removing the PROD tag which I had put up. The article topic may be encyclopedic, but the article falls well short of Wikipedia's standards in many ways, as the tags show. If you can work on it and improve it that would be great. I'll come back to it in a month or two and see how it looks then. If it doesn't look any better perhaps it can be taken to WP:AFD at that point. - Ahunt (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. That would be great - my PROD was really a notice to get someone to fix it or lose it. As long as it gets improved I am happy. - Ahunt (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See here, thanks - rst20xx (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:ACC_Champ_blank.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. 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? feydey (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem? NCCU has a law school. If it is noted in a nonstandard way, then correct it, don't delete it. 155.84.57.253 (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed Moon for FAR here. You are cordially invited to join the fun. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm just writing in order not to get into further edit warring over the term "willy-willy". Your citation for the meaning "tropical cyclone" is out of date; after following your reference, it turns out the National Weather Service's glossary states that the term "willy-willy" was "formerly used to denote a tropical cyclone" (my emphasis). Also, AerospaceWeb notes that the term has not been used for tropical cyclones in Australia since the 1930s. At the very least, Willy-Willy should redirect to Dust devil, with a disambiguation note at the top, such as the following:

Willy-Willy redirects here. For other uses, see Tropical cyclone.

Thefamouseccles (talk) 05:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. On its Talk page, I'm suggesting this article be merged with Mood disorder or deleted. Your input would be welcome. Anthony (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Devils trap.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You keep on reverting UNC-Chapel Hill's abbreviation to UNC, on the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's page and the University of North Carolina when all the data I see for it, officially is UNC-Chapel Hill, the chancellor changed it from UNC-CH^[1], what it had been before. I think you missing that yes from 1789-1963 it was University of North Carolina, but around 1963, Chapel Hill changed its name to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Women's College of North Carolina changed its name to the University of North Carolina at Greensboro around 1963 as part of a renaming the UNC System. NC State also renamed it self from North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering to the North Carolina State University at Raleigh around 1963. Yes Chapel Hill was generally considered to be UNC, though I haven't found a record of it officially using the UNC abbreviation, just unofficially being referred to as UNC. Also in 1971, the State of North Carolina passed legislation bringing into the University of North Carolina system all 16 public institutions that confer bachelor degrees, giving that, the name University of North Carolina. Really all the 16 public schools rename themselves as part of common naming scheme.

Yes in sports, general conversation Chapel Hill is referred to as UNC or North Carolina or even Carolina, though South Carolina has just as much of a claim on it, but that is not its Official Abbreviation, name, or designation! Why you put UNC above the official abbreviation on the page University of North Carolina page is a mystery. It could be added to below with 'North Carolina' for 'UNC' and 'North Carolina' for athletics, yes. By the way that column was intend for official abberiation not sports abbreviations as the heading states.

I think you are this of the January 08, 2002 article as the last word when it says UNC-CH Chancellor James Moeser and University officials are trying to phase out the "UNC-CH" abbreviation in favor of the more specific "UNC-Chapel Hill," "UNC" or simply "Carolina.^[2] But if go to the following article dated January 14, 2002 which it states Chancellor James Moeser's recent decision to drop the UNC-CH abbreviation in favor of a standardized "UNC-Chapel Hill" on all future UNC-CH documents...^[3] you see the official abbreviation!

If you find a later dated article stating a new official abbreviation, then it can be corrected, to the new abbreviation. I really don't care what they call themselves. I was just to trying to put the correct official information.

-Forgot my talk page link I guess, I don't usually do this, but you annoyed me -User_talk:Commandersonic00

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Good topic. Since you had some involvement with the Good topic redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 08:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it's a joke? I seriously believe that it's not a realignment (there isn't a broken-apart conference; or a conference adding 4+ teams in one swoop), and that it really isn't that different from, say, 1992, which doesn't have its own conference expansion article. Here and on other Wikipedias, articles about more noteworthy articles have been nominated for deletion, and some were even deleted Purplebackpack89 15:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked...I'm displeased at the ESPN media circus around the issue (earlier this month, it was all expansion, Steven Strasburg, and LeBron free agency); and that ESPN basically forced the Pac-10 to expand. I prefer the traditional West Coast Pac-10, not having some backwater school like Utah. I'm displeased that basically an ESPN media circus has created an article Purplebackpack89 15:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been further replies to your comments on this FAC. Would you mind taking a look, and commenting if possible? Parrot of Doom 13:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to comment? It would be nice to even be acknowledged. Parrot of Doom 18:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'll check for the official name of the episode later today when I get home. In the meantime, do you mind reviewing the article? I'm afraid that it will turn out like my earlier FAC's where it failed because not enough people reviewed it. Either way, thanks. Ωphois 18:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Uncg seal.png. 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. Connormah 18:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rreagan007, WikiProject College Basketball is having a discussion on the use of navboxes vs. succession boxes, and as someone who may feel strongly one way or the other, would you please chime in? We would like if you read the discussion before opining, but it is getting long, so when you do find the time to weigh in it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Clemson university seal.png. 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 03:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is inappropriate per WP:SEEALSO. All links are either in the article or in the navboxes. --Izno (talk) 05:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should really use edit summaries to justify your edits. Explain? Prodego ^talk 21:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, someone already put a wikisource sidebox at the end of the article. There's also an inline link to the wikisource text in the video caption. I think another wikisource sidebox is overkill. Brmull (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks for supporting the Atlantic Coast Conference football championships featured topic. Have a good one! JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You recently moved the University of North Carolina Wilmington page to one that is not its correct proper name. I was unable to revert the move and ask that you do so. Thanks. Ncjon (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ncjon is correct, the official name is The University of North Carolina Wilmington. Please revert your move and check that redirects such as UNCW and UNC-Wilmington point to the correct name as it appears a bot may have changed those as a result of a double redirect you created. Beach drifter (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Thundercats logo 2011.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Cary christian.png. 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:NRCA Seal.png. 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hilltop christian.png. 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Grace christian.png. 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Friendship christian.png. 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hopewell academy.png. 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Trinity Academy.png. 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kudu ^~I/O~ 21:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please solve this mystery if you can...

On September 23rd, traffic to Portal:James Bond doubled, and has stayed at the new level since then. I can't figure out what happened.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Portal%3AJames_Bond

Traffic to Outline of James Bond stayed the same (though it was at the higher-level already), which leads me to suspect changes made somewhere in Wikipedia.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Outline%20of%20James_Bond

I'd like to find out what happened, in case it reveals helpful link placement tips that can double the traffic to outlines too!

I look forward to your reply on my talk page. The Transhumanist 23:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:ECU Seal.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Clemson university seal.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I reverted your changes to Massachusetts because you had no apparent reason to remove "Commonwealth". If you have any questions about this, please feel free to ask in Talk:Massachusetts. - Denimadept (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I started a discussion on the WikiProject United States talk page on whether or not the four commonwealth states should include the official designation in their titles, and I would love your input there. Thanks, and happy holidays!-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 22:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

. . . of the recent edits to Maryland and Michigan? -- Jo3sampl (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If placed on team pages, it needs to be noted what the "championship" is. The Helms Athletic Foundation "champions", while evidently posted in media guides, are not even sanctioned as being legitimate according to the NCAA, reference the following article: Mythical national championship. The Kentucky basketball article mentions the Helm's championship in the article, but does not mention it as a legit championship in the info box. The issue here is not the awarding of the championship, but whether it is a legitimate championship being that only the NCAA tournament is officially counted toward team totals. For example, a case could be made for many NIT winners in the past as being the true champions since that tournament at one time typically had more teams, higher ranked teams, and was considered the more prestigious tournament. However, that is not the case. For example, Kentucky won the 1946 NIT, but can not count it as a National Championship even thought there is a good case for that.76.177.47.225 (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly labeled as "Pre-tournament era champions". Rreagan007 (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make it official. It either counts or it doesn't. I can form a committee and declare anything I want to, doesn't mean it is official. If it going to be placed in the info guides there needs to be clarification.76.177.47.225 (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's useful information for readers to have in the infobox. If you feel that strongly about removing this content, you should bring it up at an appropriate forum and gain consensus that it should be removed. I suggest you bring it up somewhere like Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_Basketball. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is useful information. However, there needs to be a distinction of the legitimacy of it. The way it is written now on all articles is as if it was a true 100% champion. That is not the case, evident by the articles I cited and the reluctance of the NCAA to even allow it as such. Why can't it be under the listing of Helm's Championship? You do realize that award was given out up until 1982 don't you? The way it is written right now, the casual reader is led to believe that those were honest to goodness sanctioned championships that are allowed to count toward the championship total. That is certainly not the case.76.177.47.225 (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and changed the infobox parameter to specify it's the Helms championship. I don't think any other pre-tournament championships were being used in that parameter so it should be fine. I do realize they were given until 1982, however, almost every championship they awarded after the tournament began was the NCAA tournament champion, which is already listen in the infobox. And even though that's not the case in 4 years, once the tournament began, the tournament winner is by definition THE champion. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought they were the same user. My confusion over the names. History2007 (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it happens. We are 2 different editors. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. —WFC— 20:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I need some more help at the discussion. Basically everyone but three individuals who wish to change the consensus and me have left. If you have the free time, please come back to the talk page. Thanks Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments are getting circular, and people are not getting the applicability to WP:Crystal given the existing consensus. An RfC has emerged. I am going to try to back away from the debate until new people show up Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please (a) revert your edit to comply with WP:BRD instead of beginning an edit war and (b) provide reliable sources that support your assertion? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you still believe it's acceptable to edit war without a reliable source? Do you understand WP:EW and WP:RS??? ElKevbo (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rreagan007. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ==

Requesting assistance over Dean Winchester

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to The Butterfly Effect. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't fiddle with section heading on notes etc to suit your personal preference, least of all on TFA. Johnbod (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this article is not necessary redirected. please dont do it. thank you --Coekon (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, if you must redirect it. could you please make my contribution for this article visible??? in current article, just your contribution. is it fair?--Coekon (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• that's a perfect solution, thank you--Coekon (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The table is redundant. The table of contents already lists the years of release for each season and provides a quick link to the home video releases. Having another table duplicate information like that is unnecessary. I've never visited a page where I looked at those "summary" tables and then left the page without looking further. I personally don't find them "helpful" because they don't actually provide anything unique. This is especially true here, where the table of contents already lists dates (because they are in each section header) and quick links to any other information you want.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there is a discussion here concerning when we should update this map (when a new law/court order/etc. is made or when it goes into effect). You are being contacted because you participated in a similar discussion a few months back. If you are interested, please stop by and leave your opinion. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:William&mary seal.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Uncwseal.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Comment has been posted for an article on which you have been an editor. If you wish to comment, go to Talk:Isle_of_Wight_Academy#RFC_regarding_mention_of_segregation_academy_in_lead_paragraph.2C_parallel_version_of_history.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello — this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. Jburlinson (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CITESHORT and WP:Manual of Style/Layout#Notes and References, please do not change the Barack Obama article's standard "Notes" and "References" section names to the nonstandard, confusing section names "References" and "Bibliography", as you did on 17:34, 28 June 2012 and 18:17, 27 August 2012. Thank you. Newross (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Cary acamedy logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a cool (and logical) piece! (Where did u find it?) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	UNC on the flight deck of the Nimitz award
	Thanks for your contributions to the encyclopedia. Hope you will enjoy this pic if you haven't already seen it. Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make you aware of this discussion I started at Winter storm naming. I have no intentions of making any changes to the article myself, but was just hoping to get input from editors previously involved in the article (or recently-closed AfD) in an effort to improve the article and clarify its purpose. I will leave any changes to the consensus of other editors who decide what's best. Your participation would be welcome, regardless of your views on the issue. Thank you. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion going on the Talk:Oldest public university in the United States page about which universities to include and since you have edited that page in the past and weighed in previously, I thought I'd bring it to your attention and ask if you'd be willing to revisit that. Ncjon (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You have participated in past discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles, namely about possible additions and deletions to the vital 1000 articles. There is a new, similar discussion there now, myself and other users are giving input as to whether they support or oppose the idea of certain articles being added or deleted from the vital 1000 like before. Some of the proposals have been brought up before, and some are new. There are only a small number of users giving their views but we would like more, if you are still interested we would appreciate your input there, thank you. Carlwev (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Wc-logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Levdr1lp / talk 07:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lauren Mitchell layout has two new alts. Apologies for adding these so late, but the photographer is extremely busy and I only got the new image today. Please take a gander and feel free to update your vote. Thanks for your support! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a proposal regarding the stripping of California, should the court reject Perry on the grounds that the plaintiffs had no standing to appeal, in which case, as I understand it, there could be much legal‐wrangling in California courts, and in the halls of Sacramento, over whether Judge Walker’s District Court ruling should apply statewide. I would much appreciate your comments on my proposal on the talkpage of Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg. ― many thanks, Info por favor (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Wc-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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You previously took part in this discussion which resulted in no consensus to change the color blue. Last week User:Fry1989 unilaterally changed the color of the map without consensus. It appears now that this discussion is now reactivated and I invited to you return. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you now support my proposal, would you mind formally adding it to the RfC? Fry1989 ^eh? 02:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of video connectors may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |rowspan="2"|[[YPbPr|{{YPbPr}}]] (a.k.a. component video ||rowspan="2"| 1990s || 3 [[RCA connector|RCA]] or [[BNC connector|BNC]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Zero interest-rate policy, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. greenrd (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

Just wanted to say thanks for making the Medicaid expansion map. It looks like Michigan is about to agree to the expansion: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/08/michigan-approves-obamacares-medicaid-expansion.php . Was wondering if you were keeping track of the developments and would be willing to make updates to the map as needed? If not, let me know and I'll try to figure out something myself. Thanks again and thanks in advance. --Jfruh (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Heritage Christian Academy,Fort Collins, Colorado logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you have essentially reverted my recent edit to this map's legend, without an edit summary. Can I ask why? My edit was trying to reflect the fact that 2 of the 3 jurisdictions currently colored gray (or partly gray) on the map are not states, but territories (Guam and American Samoa). --Avenue (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've now reverted your edit. --Avenue (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Friendship christian.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for an opinion on Broadcast-network-logos.jpg and other license changes you have made to network logos and am letting you know so you can leave your opinion on the matter at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Rreagan007/television network logos. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 07:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 644th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Six years ago, you were recipient no. 644 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you contribute a lot to LGBT-related content. I am not sure if you are familiar with (or even interested in) Wikimedia user groups or thematic organizations, but I thought I would direct you to Wikimedia LGBT at Meta-Wiki. This is a proposed organization that would promote the development of content on Wikimedia projects which is of interest to LGBT communities. I just thought I would point you in that direction to take a look when you have a few moments. If you are interested in participating, feel free to indicate your support. Otherwise, keep up the great work here at Wikipedia! --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-nominated the set of United States Fractional currency as FPC. It was unopposed last time, but fell one vote short of promotion. Since you voted last time I wanted to ask if you would consider reviewing it one more time. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of United States wireless communications service providers may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• based service providers in the United States are, from greatest to smallest by current subscribers (the subscriber count includes subscribers of the hosted virtual operators.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wolf reintroduction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Horn Island (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raleigh has been used for disambiguation for years, please see the page history. There is no consensus that any particular Raleigh should be the primary topic. DuncanHill (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Please will you fix all the incorrect incoming links to Raleigh? I would do it, but your redirecting of it to the town in North Carolina makes it impossible for me to use dabsolver to do this. You are welcome to go and find and fix them all by hand. It is unimaniginable that Raleigh, North Carolina should be the primary topic. Most people outside the USA will never have heard of it (except perhaps as somewhere named after Raleigh. DuncanHill (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • and request a move to where? Pointing to the dab page is entirely appropriate. DuncanHill (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the pros and cons, we need to discuss, not revert. You are edit warring and have broken the three revert rule with these edits :[2] [3] [4] [5] within 20 minutes.That means any admin can block you right here, right now, and be within policy. So stop hitting the revert button and start talking. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rreagan007,

I reverted your changes on the Vital Articles list because changes are usually determined by consensus first on the talk pages. If you wish to nominate an article, please do so there first. Thanks, Malerisch (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She is naked to make you angry... Hafspajen (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it seems Prcc27 has reverted my bold edits because I did not yield to them on the wording for the light blue... Just a word of caution, if you support the edit and rerevert, any response by Prcc27 may be a 3RR violation on their part. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you are being bold, don't forget the template as well. (Mobile edit) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Your recent good-faith edits to the Television article, which I reverted and you reinstated, introduced some wording into the lead that seemingly equates LCD displays with LED (as opposed to OLED) displays, and your recent edit summary suggests that you may harbor common misconceptions about both the terminology and the tech.

There are three categories of flat-panel video displays in public use:

• LED: The first flat-panel type that most people ever saw, if they attended stadium events during the early to mid-1990s. The original implementation, using an array of discrete conventional LEDs, is very expensive and only practical for screens ranging from very large to gigantic. That technology is still in use and still far from being obsolete for very-big-screen television (read the short LED display article, the link to which was removed by your edits). Although the two may seem "completely different" to you (per your edit summary), and there certainly are chemical and structural differences, "OLED" (Organic Light-Emitting Diode) is in fact a subset of "LED" (Light-Emitting Diode), just as "organic chemistry" is a subset of "chemistry", which is not to in any way downplay the revolutionary emergence of OLED tech.

• Plasma: Apart from pocket-size products, the first flat-panel TV to be available for consumer use. The display is an array of tiny cells of gases that glow red, green or blue when electrically stimulated. Not to be confused with either LED or LCD. Picture quality specs have traditionally blown away LCDs but the gap has narrowed and after nearly twenty years on the market plasma TVs are being discontinued.

• LCD: The display proper is an array of cells which become more or less transparent in accordance with an applied electrical field. Not self-luminous, so sufficient light has to come from behind or be reflected back through the array by a reflective back coating. Sunlight or any other type of light source can be used. Fluorescent tubes were the universal backlight of choice when moderately high-resolution monitor-size LCD units finally reached the consumer market. When LED-backlit LCD displays were later introduced, they were widely advertised as "LED TVs" in a blatant attempt to make a beneficial innovation seem more revolutionary than it actually was and to provide ample opportunity for consumers to confuse them with the OLED displays which were then making a very-high-priced market debut. From an engineering perspective, as opposed to an advertising one, the product in question is no more an "LED TV" than a fluorescent-backlit LCD display is a "Fluorescent TV" (just try finding that in an ad for the original type) or one backlit by tungsten filament light bulbs would be an "Incandescent TV".

A summary treatment in the "Television" article's lead is obviously no place for a mini-treatise like the one above. It would be nice if a neat, unadorned recitation of the suitably linked terms "LED, plasma and LCD", which technically cover All Of The Above, would suffice, but evidently it does not. I intend to install the following version of the sentence in dispute, which may clarify and help to prevent future problems, after allowing a very brief interval for reasoned objections or suggested improvements:

"The replacement of bulky, high-voltage cathode ray tube (CRT) screen displays with compact, energy-efficient flat-panel alternatives such as fluorescent-backlit and LED-backlit LCD displays, Plasma displays, and true LED (including OLED) displays, was a major hardware revolution that began penetrating the consumer computer monitor market in the late 1990s and soon spread to TV sets."

Cheers, AVarchaeologist (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply received. I like to massage my wording carefully to be as comprehensive as possible, but your rev remains factually correct and I can live with it, despite the (IMO) regrettable absence of a link to the LED display article — many readers are likely to be in the dark about what tech is used for those giant TV screens. I will install your revised version presently. AVarchaeologist (talk) 10:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited TiVo digital video recorders, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MoCA. 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) 08:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Deimos (moon) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''Deimos''' ([[Astronomical naming conventions#Natural satellites of planets|systematic designation]]: '''{{
• naming conventions#Natural satellites of planets|systematic designation]]: '''{{nowrap|Mars II}}'''}<ref name=Blunck/> is the smaller and outermore of the two [[moons of Mars|natural satellites]] of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Neuse baptist.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I don't want to fight with you, and I see your point with "American English", but "US also" is a very conventional way to indicate alternative spellings. If the article had originally been written by an American, its title might have been "Ax", and then the opening sentence might read, "An ax (or 'axe'; UK 'axe' only) is an implement . . . ." In a parenthesis like this, the aim usually is to express the parenthetical idea as concisely as possible, not necessarily in graceful phrases, and get on with the substantive matter. I'm not going to re-revert your edit, but don't be surprised if somebody else does.

Your latest revision also attempts to take into account the point I made earlier, that American English allows both "axe" and "ax", which I appreciate; but it still seems to say that the American spelling is "ax". You might change it to read, "(in American English also 'ax')", which would make it clearer (to my way of thinking, at any rate) that "ax" is an alternative spelling in AE as well. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 22:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not change the NIT bracket back to a 32 team bracket. The NIT bracket it broken up into 4 quadrants with each quadrant named for the #1 seed. It is much like how the NCAA Tournament breaks their tournament into 4 different brackets. So to have it as a 32 team bracket just because it may "easier for a reader to understand" is false. Please take a few minutes and look at how it is set up on the previous NIT pages, even just last season here, 2014 National Invitation Tournament. There is no reason for the 2015 bracket to be any different from previous season brackets. Thank you. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that, in conference brackets, the higher seeded team is listed first. However, for the actual game itself, the higher seeded team is still the designated home team and listed second.

DaDoc540 (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion "Remove Movements for civil rights," the article was removed as a level-4 vital article on 05:16, 13 August 2014‎.

However, the Talk:Movements for civil rights page continues to state, "Movements for civil rights has been listed as a level-4 vital article in History." Is it possible you could update the claim? Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your deliberate misgendering in this edit summary was unacceptable. -- haminoon (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Haminoon: Your tone is very accusatory and seems to be lacking in assuming good faith. The truth is that I wasn't giving much thought into which pronoun I was using for her, as it was just an edit summary. Let me repeat that, IT WAS JUST AN EDIT SUMMARY. But in the future, I'll try to be more mindful of the pronouns I use in edit summaries for someone who has recently changed their genders. And I suggest that you try not getting so worked up over the wording used in an edit summary, as they really don't matter all that much and most people type them quickly without giving them a huge amount of thought. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not AGF and writing "deliberate". I realise edit summaries can be pretty haphazard. -- haminoon (talk) 06:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Haminoon:No worries. It sincerely was accidental. Pronouns can sometimes be tricky, but I will try to be more mindful in the future, even if it is just in an edit summary. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. Skyerise (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop posting on my talk page, it's clear your intent is to harass rather than to inform. Skyerise (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Uncwseal.gif. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Corkythehornetfan 23:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Space exploration, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charon. 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) 09:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:St thomas more academy.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fierce Five, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fab Five. 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) 09:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey.

It seems you are in a dispute. The sooner you take it to the talk page, the sooner it is over, especially, if you think Wikipedia's policy is on your side.

Just for the record, fighting over date style is one of the lamest edit wars in Wikipedia. A mass style switch like one of those feudalistic bloodshed over a bucket that A's grand grandfather once borrowed from B's. WP:DATESRET says leave it well alone. Fleet Command (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Codename Lisa I think FleetCommand's message may have been meant for you instead.

Best Regards, 73.40.108.10 (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. WP:DATESRET is not a policy, let alone one of those certain ones. But Wikipedia:Editing policy § Talking and editing is a policy. Seeing as how your problem is now solved with two threads of talking in talk page, I'd say violating editing policy wasn't practically to your advantage. Fleet Command (talk) 03:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My man, literally every us ship article here that I've seen uses DMY dates. NAVSOUCE and DANFS use the format. The WP:MILMOS supports its use. Have you even brought this up for discussion? I'm not seeing anything that supports a consensus based agreement to move forward with this, which concerns me. I'd rather the community have a chance to weigh in on this before you move forward. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DATETIES also specifically allows DMY for US military-related articles, and that's in the MOS:DATEFORMAT section. - BilCat (talk)

I take back what I said now that I have seen WP:MILMOS. I think I recall this discussion about dates before and it was brought under agreement. I am half asleep right now. TomStar81 and BilCat are correct. Reb1981 (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that now too. I stand corrected. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:01, 16 November 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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Britney Gallivan Folding.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hilltop christian.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Grace christian.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hopewell academy.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:2015 ACC Women's Basketball Tournament logo.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Louisiana State University (seal).png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. 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) 23:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Morgan creek logo.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Friendship christian.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Trinity Academy.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rreagan007, thanks for your work in updating the Vital articles pages. Just to let you know, all the vital articles have to be tagged with a template on their talk page and the ones that are removed need to have their tag removed as well. Regards, Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize a message had already been wrote here, I think I just fixed them all now, riddle, sovereignty, Sam Walton and Greeting added, and all 18 constellations removed. I used to forget that part too, in the past. If I'm unsure how to write the template I sometimes copy and paste one from an article in the same list with the same rating; for example the VA template for the riddle talk page is identical to that on the crossword talk page.  Carlwev  07:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject UNC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't insert unsourced content, as you did here. Neutrality^talk 23:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, I just wanted to give you a heads up that I changed the proposal to what I had initially intended (some of my additional text got lost in the mix-up).

If you want to quickly read the summary I put there, you can revise your vote if necessary.

Thanks. 75.177.79.101 (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AVital_articles%2FLevel%2F5&type=revision&diff=817997161&oldid=816532104 What do you think? Dawid2009 (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I raport this mistake (In my opinion this is mistake) ?Dawid2009 (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A piece, Cloud tables, that you helped edit, has been removed on “Tax cuts and jobs act of 2017”. This was done by a powerful Doctor. Alesander (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are higher level articles displayed and counted in the lower level stats? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please answer? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Matt V. It's Sam from the Gay-Straight Alliance in high school! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:85:C102:BBC0:180C:E927:1E5D:95C2 (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have question. Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5 - Who can edit this page? Whose users? Every editors? Or some redactors or administrators? How it is when there is not disscussion yet. Do you can explain me? English is not muy native language and I can not found relevant informtions. I also don't urdenstand what mean that I am for example extendedconfirmed in English Wikipedia - https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ACentralAuth&target=Dawid2009 (In Polish Wikipedia there is other division of groups). Where are rules about it? Regards. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm KatnissEverdeen. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Scoobynatural, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 21:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:2015 ACC Women's Basketball Tournament logo.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Christopher Cantwell (white supremacist), without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Perhaps you should at least READ the Talk page first, if not actually DISCUSS this move. Calton | Talk 04:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:2015 ACC Women's Basketball Tournament logo.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I wondered if you would consider archiving some of the older content on this talk page, since it's now almost 200 KB in size, which is significantly larger than the suggested maximum size of 75 KB (per WP:TALKCOND); this makes it hard for users of mobile devices to view your talk page. You can easily configure a bot to archive your talk page automatically if you want. Thanks! An Owl Called Josh 🦉 (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same concern (though of more impact) regarding the rules for a quorum to implement TBANs and site bans at AN/ANI. There ought to be a "common-sense" rule regarding the minimum number of editors supporting a proposal before there is consensus. Obviously, WP:VA isn't a good place to test that rule, and I'm fairly certain that there will be enough editors that support the specific change being discussed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop adding cities to the list. There is a quota on the number of cities allowed, and you can't keep adding suburbs of large metropolitan regions and small cities such as Billings Howpper (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I now understand what you are saying and would like to apologize for my harsh behavior. Howpper (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rreagan, just a friendly note from another editor working in Vital Articles. I've done quite a bit of adding animals in cats and dogs recently. I noticed last night you added Tabby cat. This is actually a coat color, not a breed. It does explain this in the article. Also similar to Calico cat and Tortoiseshell cat all of which are explained in Cat coat genetics. This is also a true, for example, in horse breeds. Many think that the very popular coat color, Palomino, is a breed. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know and you can decide how to handle it since you added it. If we add one coat color, it opens the door to adding others. Well, I wouldn't appreciate anyone deciding for me and so it's up to you how to handle it. After all, it will all be voted on in the end so I have no issue with leaving it if that's want you want. Best wishes. dawnleelynn^(talk) 20:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You undid my edit and a reason would be nice. By undoing my edit you made the two </div> not a part of the template making it messed up. Please respond with a reason or redo my edit (undo your undo). ★BrandonALF★ ^{talk edits} 03:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rreagan007, I'm a journalist who's been working on a series about interesting stories on Wikipedia and Wikipedians. For example, I wrote about these two teenagers who edit articles for the NY subway and why St. Patrick's Wikipedia page is excellent. I'd like to interview you about Barbara Bush's page and notable individuals who have passed away in 2018. Could we connect over email? My address is stephenbharrison at gmail dot com ... Thank you! Stephenbharrison (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Back in May, you removed this redirect, leaving the stubette article; you did not give any explanation, and this article is almost entirely wrong, being sourced from a (real-world unreliable) "RS", the book by François Cardarelli. I propose reverting to a redirect to the (relatively reliable) article on wine cask units, but please explain your reasoning. Thanks. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

on the talk page for tranny, you stated "The prior move nomination was decided correctly." as your grounds for opposition. The problem is that you didn't state your reasons for this opinion. It doesn't do the community much good to make a conclusory statement without having elaborated to some extent as to what supports your position. In the future, you should elaborate as to why you take a certain position.71.91.178.54 (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rreagan007. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Student Television, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Hzh (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone your edit to Ayanna Pressley. Why did you make it? GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Nanjing Massacre. Because you were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. STSC (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:ACC ESPN Network Logo.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what do you think about updating counts at the level 5? We have tradition to comment milestones at talk page. It seems to me that 75% is done. More slow but more discussions and littly more page watchers recently. Cheers. Dawid2009 (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Cary christian.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated a discussion specifically about the redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 18#Christian. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COUNTRIES with colonies in the Americas: ENGLAND, besides the thirteen colonies that needed the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War to gain their independence, England had a large number of other colonies under their control; FRANCE, the French owned land from New Orleans to northern Canada, an area of over 1 million square miles with a large number of colonies under their control; SPAIN, the Spanish had a vast amount of land in both North and South America with a large number of colonies under their control. These are some of the countries that colonized North America.

And then there are the NORSE, not a country, and with no colonies whatsoever in North America (Greenland was not a Norse colony, Iceland was not a Norse colony, Newfoundland was not a Norse colony, and L'Anse aux Meadows was not a Norse colony). The title "Norse colonization of North America" is just flat out inaccurate. It appears that the main justification for giving it that inaccurate title is so it matches the titles for what England, France, and Spain accomplished in the Americas. I don't think a naming convention is a valid excuse to give an article an inaccurate title. Again, the title "Norse exploration of North America" makes total sense.

"A colony is a place controlled by another country. The metropolitan state is the country that owns the colony." Bold added. Simple English Wikipedia - If Greenland was colony in about 1000 AD, what country colonized it? I'm having a hard time finding the country of Norse. If the small encampment of L'Anse aux Meadows was a colony as some are claiming, what county is it a colony of … Norse or Greenland or Iceland?

Your thoughts will be greatly appreciated. Jerry Stockton (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign this edit (an oversight I'm sure) and it's also helpful to provide an edit summary such as support or oppose at the very least. Andrewa (talk) 05:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've been active at Talk:Charlottesville car attack and it doesn't appear that you've been made aware of the sanctions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Wcsr logo.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused logo with no article used, it's also can't move to commons because of an unused logo will be deleted as of out of project scope.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} 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. Willy1018 (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rreagan007. As I wrote, I'm unfamiliar with the whole Vital Article system. All I did was was quickly search. Searching more thoroughly, I found a bit more: [6]. That's no consensus for level 4, so I think level 3 would be safe unless you want to start a new discussion. --Ronz (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. So, have you found any discussion that 4 or 5 is appropriate?

As I said, I'm new to this. I read Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Biological_and_health_sciences/Health#Medicine_(147_articles) to mean that they are subsections of Alternative Medicine, which is level 4. Is this how you read it as well? --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In case it helps, there were added here --Ronz (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronz: As the Level 5 list is currently under construction, there is no formal process for adding an article to the Level 5 list yet. For the time being, any user who thinks an article merits inclusion in the Level 5 list can simply add it to the list. If you don't think an article that has been listed merits inclusion on Level 5, you can nominate it for removal at the Level 5 discussion page. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't help. silly designations. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 19:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roxy the dog: You're welcome to express your opinion about it on the Vital Articles talk page. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Rreagan007. I've spent some more time to understand the project, and know understand what it is you're doing. Sorry for the confusion. --Ronz (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nom. ios2019 (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC) (Note: This does not appear to be a legitimate vote. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)) why ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ios2019 (talk • contribs)

• @Ios2019: It just seemed very unusual that a new user's first and only edits were to vote on a Vital Articles nomination. Your account appeared to be a WP:sockpuppet to me. Is this not the case? If I'm mistaken and this isn't a sockpuppet account, please let me know. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend

First of all, because English is not my mother language, there may be grammatical mistakes in the text, please don't blame me! I do not have another account other than this account, or maybe I've had another account in the past and I'm not using it for many years. (Ios2019 (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Maybe i am out of place but your account does appear to be a SPA. No new editor is going to go straight into voting on vital articles and ONLY editing the vital articles page; combine that with only removing Iranian figures from the list without discussion on clearly vital people i find it very hard to assume good faith. Sorry, i agree with Reagan's original assessment of the vote. GuzzyG (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GuzzyG: It appeared strange to me as well, but he mentions that English isn't his first language, and based on his edits when he wasn't logged in, his IP address is located in Iran. Perhaps he can read English and reads the English-language Wikipedia, but feels like his English is not good enough to actually edit English-language articles. I think it's plausible that he could have stumbled upon the Vital Articles project and thought it was an interesting idea and decided to start contributing to it. I haven't noticed any patterns that would indicate he is a sock of one of the other contributors trying to improperly influence the vote outcomes. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of diacritics, but please see the Google test results I just posted over there. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 23:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rreagan007,

An article I created was recently rejected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Xfinity_Mobile

Being that Xfinity Mobile is a subsidiary, much like Xfinity Instant TV, I was hoping you could point me in the right direction in getting this article approved. I believe that the company information, including the info box, would better serve people with a dedicated page.

Please let me know your thoughts and thanks for your time. Factsandsources (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spectrum (cable service), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Showtime (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:TM says to not invent new stylizations for a name that are not commonly used by sources. All sources have consistently referred to the service as "Disney+". ViperSnake151  Talk  19:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Coccyx (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to PL

Sarcophagus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to PL

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- MrX 🖋 20:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If 2/3 favoring a change from Chairman (original survey), and 2/3rd favoring Chairperson over Chairman (secondary survey within same RM), does not establish consensus to move from Chairman to Chairperson, what would? 3/4? 5/6? 7/8? --В²C ☎ 23:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my last edit summary. I had to remove the default in order to have enough space to write what I needed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sam winchester.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Mvcg66b3r. An edit that you recently made to WRAL-TV seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you weighed in on a recent move request for a group of busts, you might take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Visual_arts#Naming_conventions_for_public_statues as well. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure streaming services (vMVPDs) should be listed among largest providers since it is not certain they are considered MVPDs. Since the article is no longer called MVPD, that isn't really a problem but the table does say "MVPDs" at the top.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That looks better. vMVPD currently redirects to the article so it should be fine for now.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

High quality sources are required. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: If everything on Wikipedia that didn't have a "high quality source" were removed, 95% of all content would be removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a justification to add more. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent contributions at Dexbrompheniramine/pseudoephedrine appear to show that you are engaged in edit warring; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not override another editor's contributions. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rreagan007: To spell out the messages above, hundreds of people try to add promotional external links to Wikipedia every day. You might not intend the edits at Dexbrompheniramine/pseudoephedrine to be promotional, but they are indistinguishable from other attempts to tell the world about the great service offered by a particular website. At any rate, you will face further blocks for edit warring if the edits continue, and the blocks will quickly escalate to long periods. Please find something else to do. Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:ShopHQ logo.jpg has been proposed for deletion 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 {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} 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) 01:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sam winchester.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

O3000 (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Talk:Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your unsourced personal opinions about Arbery's behavior (specifically, that it was "shady" and that he was "belligerent," when the cited source for the incident states precisely the opposite), and your entirely-unsupported claim that he "charged" someone (which suggests that Arbery initiated aggression, which is not supported by available sources and somehow pretends that two armed men chasing someone in a vehicle for 4 minutes is not also aggression), are not relevant or acceptable on the talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Killing of George Floyd does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Love of Corey (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RR, are you planning to re-propose a move for Flag of the United States? Just asking. It was weird that an IP showed up and added all those other articles to your move proposal just minutes after you proposed it. Had I known for certain that it was not you editing logged out accidentally, I would have reverted immediately. I do think a case could be made for moving the article to American Flag, but it would need some sort of proof that it was the most common name. With such proof, I'm inclined to support the move, but it would probably be an uphill battle, judging by the comments the first proposal gathered before the closure. - BilCat (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Flag of the United Kingdom is a separate article from Union Jack, and has been for a long time, so that isn't a good rationale. But other stuff exists, and pages should be judged on the own merits. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please see this discussion. Bionic (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Thunder well. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 12#Thunder well until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. A7V2 (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ecsu seal.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ecsu seal.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ecsu seal.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rrreagan007. In the Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 September you stated that “heavy lobbying by Ukrainians” was one of “issues that cast a shadow over this move request.” In my opinion this is inappropriate in discussion. I’m asking you to remove or strike the comment. Thanks. —Michael Z. 18:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mzajac: "Inappropriate" in what way? Is it untrue? Rreagan007 (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me. Which particular editors are you saying are both Ukrainian and casting a shadow? Did you go by their passports, surname on their driver’s licence, home addresses, or DNA results? Or do you just mean all Ukrainians should be excluded from Wikipedia because of their bad qualities?

Making sweeping accusations that members of a recognizable group are responsible for misdeeds is not alright. I won’t ignore it without challenging because this kind of rhetoric mustn’t become normalized—then what comes next? Please strike your comment. —Michael Z. 20:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mzajac: I was referring to the Ukrainian government, not Wikpedia editors. I have modified my comment to make that more clear. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What “heavy lobbying” by the “Ukrainian government”? I didn’t see it participate in the discussion. The city of Kyiv sent one letter to the Wikimedia Foundation in April 2015. I saw that letter mentioned once in the move discussion by an anti-Kyiv editor. Is that what you turned into “heavy lobbying” or am I missing something?

But that doesn’t even matter. Your comment doesn’t say that. Please strike it. —Michael Z. 21:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mzajac: According to our article on the subject, the Ukrainian government has been pushing this name change going back to 1995, and 2 years ago the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry launched an online campaign to push for the name change. I have already modified it to make it more clear what I meant. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Nations do what they do. Here in Canada, some native place names are restored (e.g., Haida Gwaii, Iqaluit), entered into a database, and adopted internationally without complaints. Ukrainians have also had to work to have their identity recognized and shed a colonial legacy. Wikipedia’s role is to write an article about the “lobbying,” not to do plain it messes up our articles. —Michael Z. 00:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For those who still support the Russian colonial legacy, they can take comfort in the fact that the country's English name is still "Urkaine", which more closely resembles the Russian transliteration, Ukraina, rather than the Ukrainian Ukrayina. - BilCat (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Epic Barnstar
		Thank you for being neutral. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 09:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Universityofsouthcarolinaseal.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston § Requested move 10 February 2021. Hi there. Would you mind commenting on this move discussion? Thanks. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rreagan007

just a question (not a complaint) regarding

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_transcontinental_railroad&diff=1007727093&oldid=1007460145

I had I think followed the formatting now suggested by the RM system (the RMCD bot and its various life support systems).

I don't really see a lot of difference that the emphasis makes, and previous version of the RM system did bold much as you have. But that seems to have changed for some reason, and I just went along with it.

Has it been discussed anywhere you know about? If not is it worth raising perhaps? Andrewa (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gas-guzzler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sedan. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spirit (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Petroleum spirits.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Your edits to Copyright law of the United States and Public domain in the United States have been reverted due to being factually incorrect. The 95 year copyright term runs through the end of the year, NOT exactly 95 years from publication. Ergo all works published in 1926 will enter the public domain on January 1, 2022 regardless of when in 1926 they were published: https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain#Footnote_3. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Social equity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fairness.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rreagan007,
I sincerely hope your holiday season goes well this year especially with what we went through last year. I'm optimistic that 2022 will be a better year for all of us: both in real life and on Wikipedia. Wishing you the best from, Interstellarity (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Dark side of the Moon and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 13#Dark side of the Moon until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why you unbolded the scientific name at chequered skipper with the comment "proper formatting". As per MOS:BOLDALTNAMES significant alternate names should be bolded in the lead section. But maybe I'm missing something? Somatochlora (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rreagan007, you are invited to participate in a ranked-choice poll at Talk:Cross-country skiing (sport)#Ranked-choice poll of alternatives offered, which may help arrive at a consensus among the choices discussed. I have set up an opportunity for you to do so. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to add your voice at: Talk:Cross-country skiing (sport)#How about "Cross-country skiing competition"? before the discussion closes. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your many contributions on the RM discussion for the Ivory Coast article. You changed my mind. I was hoping you could clear something up for me: I know I am supposed to use strikethrough to change my vote, but what do I do to my original argument? Delete it? How does that impact your reply? Sorry to bother you, but you clearly know your stuff. By the way, love the choice of "intentionally left blank."Nieuwe Nederlander (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, and apologies for any inconvenience! I did some digging and read through similar discussion threads and (think I) figured it out. Let me know if I messed up the formatting, though! Nieuwe Nederlander (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Most of your contributions at AfD are WP:JUSTAPOLICY and will be ignored by the closer. You need to explain how and why the policy you point to is met. Thank you. Pilaz (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Along this line, I wonder if you at Afd:Meadow Oaks specifically mean that census-designated places meet Wikipedia:Geoland? thnksDjflem (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and we haven't talked much but I've enjoyed your work and comments for years. On the women thing, please read the second sentence of Woman, which covers 'women', so it is right up there in the lead. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rreagan007. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't like to see your move request getting bogged down in the question of the capital P, especially since there was a very recent and heavily-attended discussion that concluded in favour of lowercase. I suggest you change the proposed target to "Neo-paganism" to simplify the question and keep the conversation focused. Thanks. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you've just contradicted yourself. At the move discussion at Elizabeth II you quite rightly suggested that it was bad practice to open this discussion while the discussion at Charles III was uncompleted. But then you contradicted yourself by opening a discussion in relation to George I and George II. PatGallacher (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Were you planning on making any proposals at Talk:William IV by any chance? That one, in my view, does need to have "of the United Kingdom" attached.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC) RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

See several people's comments. PatGallacher (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank you again for notifying me of the discussions. I give you permission to contact me again in the future about any other discussions related to ones I have participated in, if you'd like to.

Could I suggest that, after these discussions about Elizabeth II etc. have closed, that Elizabeth I may also be a candidate for moving, given she is the only monarch to have held that title with a regnal number and is by and far the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for 'Elizabeth I'. Jèrriais janne (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your comment in this discussion, I'd like to point you to the very similar, more-recent conversation I had with another user here with the suggestion that you'd be interested in reading through it. Your comment is misguided and rooted in ignorance (nothing wrong with that, but I wouldn't expect you to know unless you're familiar with anything having to do with Hawaiʻi in the modern day. These spellings actually are are English, even if not the variety of English you speak/type! Language variation!) I also think it may be worthwhile to consider what end pushes for anglicization are achieving here, or if this type of act is simply a remnant of (subtle but ongoing) cultural erasure. –Fpmfpm (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me of the page. It was very fast-moving; took me three tries to add my two cents! ("This page has been modified since you started editing...") Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Talk:William IV. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. This many talk page messages constitute spamming; going forward please use the WP:PING function if you believe that notification is required. BilledMammal (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ElKevbo (talk) 03:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nor should you alter another user's post. Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please archive your talk page. These pages are for other editors to communicate with you, and this huge page does not make that easy. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rreagan007, can you please archive your talk page? Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in my edit summary at Talk:The Old Man and the Sea, through various site-wide discussions at WT:TPL, at this link, and this one, the community has found that not only is WP:VITAL essentially a WikiProject and that the banner should be included in {{WPBS}}, but that the vital banner should actually be merged into the banner shell because of the lack of relevant information. I note that an editor below has also questioned your separation of the templates; please don't continue doing this. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that most of your edits seem to be openly ignoring the results of this discussion. Just making sure you're aware. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Sorry, I was not aware of that until you informed me of it. I have been trying to clear the vital articles maintenance category: [7]. Having the wikiproject banner shell in the other configuration makes articles show up there as being unassessed. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a edit summary when you make changes so other editors can understand why you are doing that. I'm confused by your edit on Talk:Icelandic language, could you please give an explanation as to why you did that. Thanks. WanderingMorpheme 20:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WanderingMorpheme: I have been trying to clear the vital articles maintenance category: [8]. Having the wikiproject banner shell in the other configuration makes articles show up there as being unassessed. I was also unaware of the consensus against the Vital Articles template being outside of the banner shell or of the impending template merger until very recently. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:LoveWorld USA.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request at TfD, you can use this search to find a list of pages tagged with {{WP1.0}} but without {{Vital article}}. Frietjes (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

if you wish to save this list, you should do so soon, before these templates are deleted. Frietjes (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given [[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility#RfC: How should articles on sovereigns of current European monarchies be (re)titled?|this renewed move discussion]], perhaps participants in past move discussions should be notified. I actually did not see the one that closed about three weeks ago, so they are getting by some people (such as me). Are you in a position to do that notification as you have in the past? Wehwalt (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Louisiana State University (seal).png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]