User talk:Chaosfeary

Welcome

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try Wikipedia:How to edit a page.
To sign your posts (on talk pages, Articles for deletion page etc.) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
You can experiment in the test area.
You can get help at the Help Desk
Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:How to write a great article

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log. -- utcursch | talk

Graham Masterton

Ah well! It makes up for your double redirects on GI joe and Gi Joe. It's six am and I've been at work all night I need to sleep. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

lol k ;) --Chaosfeary 13:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I knew I should have taken up drinking at work. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Islam. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 68.39.174.238 22:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad etc..

Thanks , I know about BrandonYusuf and the other members of the Islamic thought police. They incessantly patrol wikpedia pages to try to bully in their Mutaween versions of wikipedia articles.--CltFn 15:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New serial vandal, "Pete the Cunctator"/"I'm back!"

It also includes User:Ha ha ha some dude. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for dealing with this user. I know who they are and am in the process of doing something about them. However I have taken the liberty of deleting my address from your user talk page and will be asking a developer to delete it from the message you posted to the incidents notice board. -- Francs 2000

14:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried that - it means personally restoring over 24,000 edits, one at a time until I get ot the one with my address on it. A developer can do it a lot quicker. -- Francs 2000

14:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS I also deleted your message to CambridgeBayWeather on his talk page regarding another vandal, and can't restore it because it would mean also restoring an edit with my address in it - can you go and add that again? -- Francs 2000

14:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:BrandonYusufToropov

I have left a note on his talk page indicating that you are not a sockpuppet. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment by BrandonYusufToropov/YUBER super-sockpuppet...

These two are never editing at the same time, yet act and talk in very much the same way...
Yuber contributions history
BrandonYusufToropov|BrandonYusufToropov contributions history

Yuber

(Past history of personal attacks and POV-trolling, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yuber).

Reverts any edits I make, puts in edit description "banned editor".., see User_talk:Yuber history or Talk:Islam history.
Violates WP:NPA repeatedly, insults me and others, and inserts POV in articles constantly.
Is likely sockpuppeteer of User:BrandonYusufToropov, they are never editing at the same time and never talk to each other - Act in very much the same way.

BrandonYusufToropov

UserBrandonToropov has been harassing me, User:Ta bu shi da yu and User:Klonimus keeps making personal attacks in edit histories to make them not easily viewable except by people he doesn't like the edits of.

See:

(+) edit *personal attack left on Talk:Islamofascism (term) about Klonimus

He says sorry in the edit history of Islamofascism (term) but that only appeared after I made a complaint about him on this page which is also mentioned on User:Francs2000's talk page - He obviously saw it and is worried that he might actually get in trouble for it at last.

I have been blocked once for making *one* personal attack on him already (see User_talk:Chaosfeary#Block) by User:SlimVirgin (I called him an "ugly little anal-troll" in an edit history, the previous edit by him had in the edit history "don't listen to chaosfeary enviroknot sockpuppet" or some crap like that

It seems there's one rule for everyone else yet he is allowed to insult people all he wants... --Chaosfeary 15:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC) --Chaosfeary 15:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He removed User:CambridgeBayWeather's warning on User_talk:BrandonYusufToropov, much as he tends to remove any comments he doesn't like..

So, how come when I attack him, I get blocked (by User:SlimVirgin), but he is free to do what he wants and continue to insult multiple people violating WP:NPA? I only made *one* insult against him and I was immediately blocked.

See the links above, those are just some of the examples.. I would not be surprised if he in fact was a sockpuppet of User:Yuber (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber, he has used sockpuppets before) since he was the one to start calling me "enviroknot" (an old enemy of his apparently) then quieted down and then BrandonYusuf starts in his place.. Suspicious... --Chaosfeary 16:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up

Hi again - I'm just trying to get back to you regarding the post you made here. My apologies for not responding to your post earlier. I've posted a note on BrandonYusufToropov and Yuber's talk page an FYI regarding the checkuser results.

I'm sorry to hear that you feel personal attacks towards you have not stopped. This is something I feel we can all refrain from on Wikipedia. This is the approach that I will take regarding such things moving forward in your case - I do not intend on monitoring edits of other users for the purposes of tracking down personal attacks towards you, nor will I act on them if they are made on pages made outside of the jihad article. There are two reasons for this. The first, is because I do not want to overextend myself. I want to help mediate the talk page for the jihad article so that at minimum the edit war will stop. If I begin to do other things, I may not be as effective towards this end. The second, is that I also think that it takes away from creative editing if too much time and effort is dedicated towards documenting personal attacks - of course, if something simply unacceptable were to happen off the jihad talk page, I will act on it. Please, let me know should this ever happen - but also choose judiciously what is worth pursuing. I should emphasize that I think for now, I feel most comfortable monitoring just the jihad page at the moment. I'll do my best to help you if something happens elsewhere, but if I am unable to do it myself, I will invite another administrator to take a look at it and let you know.

So long as I am monitoring the jihad page, you can expect that I will intervene on that page to the best of my ability so that your editing experience is not diminished by the participants on that page. If you notice, the atmosphere on that page is slightly better now - and this is primarily because the posts are now less loaded, and the use of the second person has decreased. This to me is a little bit of progress, and I hope that this trend continues to improve. If you want to talk further about this, let me know on my talk page, or send me an e-mail. I'll do my best to respond, but keep in mind that I have other responsibilities outside of Wikipedia, so it may not be as timely as it can be. I hope this addresses your concerns - see you around! --HappyCamper 03:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MB?

I'm not sure that your move of the article on the Muslim Brothers was correct. See Wikipedia:Naming Conventions:

Convention: If the definite or indefinite article article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. This would be the case for the title of a work such as a novel. Otherwise, do not include it at the beginning of the page name. Examples: The Hague, The Old Man and the Sea but: the Netherlands.

I think the move should probably be reversed. Palmiro | Talk 12:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, didn't know about that. Yeah, that's fine. --Chaosfeary 13:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, ugly

And it's not even the Firefox logo.

That's the Firebird logo, not the Firefox one. Entirely inappropriate.

--Chaosfeary 23:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know but some people like it and I thought an alternate version was better than having people revert back and forth till everyone was pissed off. Bartimaeus 07:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon

Chaosfeary, I'm a little worried about the direction things are going with you and Brandon. I don't think you should restore removed comments to his talkpage. If you think he has behaved inappropriately, contact an admin and ask for them to get involved. That kind of policing is better done by them than by people involved in a given dispute. Also, I'm not sure it was a great idea to remove Brandon's comments from the talkpage of Islamofascism. You may very well have been within your rights to do so, but I'm not sure, and it's much better to ask for an admin to do such things than to do them yourself. Basically, I think when you're involved in a dispute, it's better to ask for an admin's help rather than undertaking potentially controversial actions yourself. Anyway, just my thoughts. I offer them because you seem like you have a lot to offer to Wikipedia and I want to keep you around! Wikipolitics can be annoying, but it is necessary. Regards, Babajobu 13:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... I'll try that in future, sorry. User:CambridgeBayWeather previously pointed out to us both that his habit of removing negative comments from both users and administrators from his talk page constantly is actually vandalism, though, that was my reason - If this needs to be left to administrators in future, ok, I will - I'm still a bit miffed really that I got blocked (by User:SlimVirgin) for calling him one name (in response to constant abuse from him) and nothing ever happens to him... Seems a lot of bias... --Chaosfeary 13:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he can get comeuppances, too. SlimVirgin just left a note with him telling him to stop accusing you of being Enviroknot. And he spent a lot of time trying to argue for Islamofascism's removal, but it's now here to stay. So Wikipedia is full of frustrations for everybody! Babajobu 14:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chaosfeary, a plea from a friend: concentrate on the articles and avoid the personality wars. Just ignore the other stuff, don't even talk about other users. It's not worth it. You'll end up with a long-term ban, and I don't want to see that. Babajobu 03:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet allegations

Chaosfeary, please stop accusing Brandon and Yuber of being sockpuppets. They aren't, and their style of writing clearly shows that.

Their styles of writing and edits are actually very similar, have you got someone to check that they aren't the same? Normally I would just believe that, but I saw elsewhere that you don't seem to know how to check user accounts and had to get admin Jayjg to do it for you instead... --Chaosfeary 14:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've also asked Brandon to stop alleging you are Enviroknot.

Other admins (eg User_talk:CambridgeBayWeather) have already asked him to stop doing this: He deleted their requests from his talk page (apparently this counts as vandalism too) and ignored the warnings.. --Chaosfeary 14:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to using this one account and concentrate on editing within our policies. If you do that, no one can reasonably fault you, and you should call upon the help of any admin if you continue to be attacked. However, if you use other accounts or IP addresses, or engage in personal attacks, you put yourself in the wrong, even if you're being attacked too.

I have already been doing this, those other accounts Brandon/Yuber constantly mentions are *not* me, and I have already mentioned this...

You may want to consider staying away from the Islamofascism page for a few days to let the situation calm down a bit. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yuber and BrandonYusufToropov are obviously not the same person, and the technical evidence confirms that - please desist from making this accusation. While there is no technical evidence linking you to Enviroknot or the open proxies, and while it is extremely unlikely that you are Enviroknot, it is quite obvious that FluffyPinkKittensofDoom is a revert sock related to those open proxies. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but those "proxies" aren't me. --Chaosfeary 17:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Jayjg to do the user check because only a small number of arbitrators have access to it. If Brandon says again that you're Enviroknot, tell me about it, please. As for him deleting posts from his talk page without archiving them, it's regarded as bad form, but it's not vandalism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American Terrorism

G'day Chaosfeary,

I note from your userpage that you are "mourning the loss of civility" on Wikipedia. I don't believe edit summaries like this one do anything to advance the cause of civility in our community. I know it's hard to keep one's head in the middle of a rvt war (speaking of which, by protecting that page I've prevented you and Mr McConaughey from breaching the 3RR ... tsk, tsk), but please consider moderating your tone in the future. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia Boycott Campaign"

The purpose of the "Wikipedia Boycott Campaign" would be to call attention to the systemic issues plaguing Wikipedia. This boycott would consist of refusal to participate in contributing to Wikipedia. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Refer to User:JuanMuslim/Wikipedia_Boycott_Campaign for details. Please address any questions, suggestions, etc you may have at talk -Wikipedia Boycott Campaign--JuanMuslim ^1m 04:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, you created it yet you're not even interested in doing it yourself ("neutral")... I can't see much point in it in any case, it's not like it will achieve anything except letting the admin+user cliques run rampant. --Chaosfeary 09:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I copied your comment to the talk page I mentioned earlier. --JuanMuslim ^1m 15:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for disruption

I've blocked you for 24 hours for disruption on multiple articles (including Islam and Christianity). Carbonite | Talk 17:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And Carbonite was being merciful. I was fairly close to blocking you indefinitely. Please do not abuse his trust that you might return productively. --Nlu (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see I was too late; I had blocked him as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Optical fiber/Optical fibre

STOP MOVING PAGES AROUND! This is extremely disruptive!--Srleffler 22:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not disruptive. What's more disruptive is you abusing admin privileges to move back a perfectly sensible page move just because of your own views, instead of discussing first... --Chaosfeary 22:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't move large numbers of pages without discussing first. In particular edit warring over regional spellings is considered quite in appropriate. Stop, or I at least will start considering such moves vandalism. -- SCZenz 22:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you for a week, for the above highly disruptive and clearly malicious moves, and for mass-altering other user's comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you talking about? "Clearly malicious"? How? It was not directed at User:Srleffler if that's what you mean, the above response was only after he reverted me (I'd never even heard of him before, let alone had a reason to be "malicious" towards him)...

I moved the page because I thought it should be moved, and I didn't move it to something absurd which would be vandalism (eg "magic cable"). That's not vandalism. Neither is correcting links that go to redirection pages... --Chaosfeary 22:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also blocked for one week. If my block was the second one, consider it an affirmation of Finlay's block. Carbonite | Talk 22:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I was just about to do the same. You're pushing the boundaries of acceptable behaviour here, and I suggest that you take a step back and consider what you're doing more carefully in the future.--Sean|Bla ck 22:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If there's any more trouble from this account, I'm going to consider blocking indefinitely. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feared this eversince that 3RR violation at Muhammad, where he pulled the "admin abuse" card when clearly not applicable.Voice of All (MTG)^T|@|ESP 21:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome back. I did get your email, but wanted to wait until your block expired to reply. I actually agree that what you did here was not "vandalism", but it was an example of "disruptive editing". There is good reason why the guidelines recommend against converting pages from one national variety of English to another. It does no good, and encourages edit wars. If it is acceptable for you to bulk-convert pages from American to Commonwealth spelling, then it is equally acceptable for an American editor to bulk-convert pages the other way. I am pretty sure there are quite a few Americans who would be more than happy to Americanize the entire encyclopedia, if they could. Keeping pages in the flavour of English in which they were originally written is a convenient standard, which discourages utterly useless edit warring over which variety of English to use.--Srleffler 20:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your mess at Pound

Where's that magic bot you claimed would appear to clean up the mess you left with hundreds of links to the disambiguation page at Pound? Didn't happen, did it? I suggest you get busy and start whittling it down. Gene Nygaard 02:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About Template:Infobox television (animated)

How can the infobox be adjusted to hide unused fields and add more fields??? Please respond ASAP!!! --WIKISCRIPPS 07 SUN NOV 26 2006 1:10 AM EST

Bloody hell

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Bloody hell, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 172.165.34.191 20:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:BroadSword Comics.jpg

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:BroadSword Comics.jpg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 22:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Hell

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Bloody Hell, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Bloody Hell. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 14:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Bloody Hell

A tag has been placed on Bloody Hell 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 web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

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 (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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. Redfarmer (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Devils Due Publishing.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Devils Due Publishing.jpg. 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. Mifter (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Devils Due Publishing.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Devils Due Publishing.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) 12:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Avatar Press.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Avatar Press.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Chaos Comics.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Chaos Comics.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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Chaosfeary! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Sally Rowena Munt - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of World Leaders Entertainment

The article World Leaders Entertainment has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for sources reveals an insufficient amount of reliable coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Neelix (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of World Leaders Entertainment for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article World Leaders Entertainment is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Leaders Entertainment until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Neelix (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC that you may be interested in...

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Image

Template:Image has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rhesus factor (Rh factor) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rhesus factor (Rh factor). Since you had some involvement with the Rhesus factor (Rh factor) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]