Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on 103rd Regiment of Foot, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because 103rd Regiment of Foot is a disambiguation page that only points to a single article, or no articles at all.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting 103rd Regiment of Foot, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself.CSDWarnBot02:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Shimgray, that seems perfectly reasonable. I'm just put out because it means we'll need to find a new format for our assessment on this. Thanks also for emailing me the content from the page, that will come in handy.
Yeah, it was suggested by our mentor. Traditionally for these sorts of independent research projects (they're associated with our degree) the assessment is by a short formal report, but our mentor felt that since we were putting so much work into it should be accessible by other interested people. Because its an independent project though we set the terms of the assessment so we should be able to change it (even at this late date).
We shouldn't need any more substantial proof that the article was briefly a page, thankyou anyway though.
Hi, I am just guessing that you are the same Shimgray that popped in over at Wikinews. If so, the photos would be much appreciated. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check out this year article. We're trying to get it up to GA status and I noticed that in earlier discussions you had expressed interest in turning year articles into prose. Any help you could lend would be great. Wrad (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed that you appear to have deleted a page for 39th Fighter Squadron in Dec 2005. I know its a long time ago, but do you remember why? I would like to create the page to provide information regarding Australian basing of the squadron. Regards --Newm30 (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Georgi Ivanov (mayor), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for uploading Image:NSS logo.png. 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. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. 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.
Just in case you haven't noticed, Image:Replace this image female.svg is up for deletion (nomination has been done on March 12, but without tagging the image page; I complete the nom today). Given the large number of pages where this image is used, I believe some discussion should take place before deleting. Tizio14:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I am a graduate student in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota. We are conducting research on ways to engage content experts on Wikipedia. Previously, Wikipedia started the Adopt-a-User program to allow new users to get to know seasoned Wikipedia editors. We are interested in learning more about how this type of relationship works. Based on your editing record on Wikipedia, we thought you might be interested in participating. If chosen to participate, you will be compensated for your time. We estimate that most participants will spend an hour (over two weeks on your own time and from your own computer) on the study. To learn more or to sign up contact KATPA at CS dot UMN dot EDU or User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring. Thanks. KatherinePanciera (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I wonder if I can ask why you protected [[Image:Replace this image female.svg]]? It seems many editors find it ugly and obtrusive and I've been trying to find out the background to the controversy. Thanks and regards. --Kleinzach (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Searching the deletion log I thought MZMcBride had deleted this article in Aug 07 but in going on to re-edit/re-create the page, it suggests you did on 16 May 07 for "Redirecting to a deleted article". I know one (external) link on the page was dead (a temporary server issue) but hadn't realised internal wiki links had died (if so sorry, but there was *nothing* controversial in the rest of the page's valid contents). I haven't checked on it till now to find it removed! Can you reinstate my page please? Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roddypeters (talk • contribs) 15:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 09:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the above template has been fully-protected by you. I believe the protection wasn't necessary; not only it hasn't gone through any vandalisms, but the template is for the talk namespace, which isn't an usual target for vandalism. The template needs some updates, and I wish if it could be unprotected. Or, should I request for edit using {{editprotected}}? Please reply here. Thank you! eDenE05:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Editprotected is probably your best bet - because these are so widely used (and thus vulnerable), and because normal editing to them is so rare, it seems best to leave it protected. Shimgray | talk | 23:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
