User talk:Beobjectiveplease

Rabbi Pinto

Dearest new user, please stop editing Pinto's account - Wikipedia doesnt exist for you to edit pages. Dont touch it as your sole purpose here seems to be this account. Babasalichai (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Why Do you exist as a single user account only for Pinto ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 12:25, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

Pinto

Two concerns on Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto. First, you appear to be engaged in an edit war over the contents of the article. This is not allowed per Wikipedia policies. In general, if you disagree with another user about the article, you must go to the talk page and discuss the issue, working together to achieve consensus. Simply reverting back and forth is not allowed. In fact, we have what we call a "bright-line rule"--3RR. This says that you may (almost, and the exceptions don't apply here) never revert the same article more than 3 times in 24 hours. You (and the other user) have both reached that limit; if you go over, you may be temporarily blocked from editing. Please stop, go to the talk page, and discuss the changes.

Second, in a recent edit summary (this one), you said that the other editors additions were libel. While you may not have done so intentionally, it is important that you never make what could be construed as a legal threat on Wikipedia. I don't think you intended that as a threat, and probably weren't aware of that policy, but even a single additional comment of this nature will almost inevitably result in you being blocked. We consider legal threats to have extremely chilling effects on collaborative editing, and thus they are entirely prohibited. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The user you're referring to has been installing biased edits on the page for months and he has been doing so via multiple accounts. This is not news, of course, as I have had a number of discussions with other editors about the aforementioned user. Please look at the history and the discussion page -- it's all there. Also, this user has repeatedly sent me messages saying that "I am not allowed to edit particular pages." Look at my user page. I am repeatedly threatened by this individual (from his various accounts). The user has been blocked on a number of occasions for posting what is perceived as potentially libelous material. Per Wiki, "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous." The user posted "potentially libellous" material that was "poorly sourced" and I removed it. Also, I do believe that my edits are not an "edit war," as what I have done falls under 3RR exemptions. According to Wiki's 3RR exemptions, "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)." While we should not rely solely on this exemption, if you view the history of the page in question, the user you refer to has a history of vandalism and biased edits. For that reason, discussion often falls on deaf ears. Beobjectiveplease (talk)

Beobjective, I think you are on the right track. I have watch-listed the article as well, though it is not my exclusive interest, and have noted your level-headed attempts to keep the edits factual and neutral. Your presence is welcome on the page, and you are not obligated to edit other articles. You are welome to do so if you have time, as you have some skills in this area. Thanks. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Diannaa, thanks for the kind words! I do believe that my edits have been in support of a neutral POV and will begin editing other Wiki pages soon. I definitely think I can contribute much more to the community and, at the least, can help flesh out some existing entries. Thanks again!

I fail to understand what part of the edits are in accurate. Did he not host a fundraiser at 15 CPW ? So whats so wrong here. beobjective doesnt like AOL as a source ? AOL you think is libelous and doesnt fact check items ? Thats the source you claim isnt accurate ? Give me a break. And when 1 speaks of 3RR is not beobjective the one responding to my original edits ? This is a controversial leader and it simply should be reflected as such. Babasalichai (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You failed to read the articles. The fundraiser wasn't hosted by Pinto. It was hosted by Bracha and Binstock. Beobjectiveplease (talk)

Please do not again remove sourced material from AOL and as user Qwyrxian states Second, in a recent edit summary (this one), you said that the other editors additions were libel. While you may not have done so intentionally, it is important that you never make what could be construed as a legal threat on Wikipedia. I don't think you intended that as a threat, and probably weren't aware of that policy, but even a single additional comment of this nature will almost inevitably result in you being blocked. Be objective and balanced. USer Dianna collaborated and made edits. Babasalichai (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The AOL line about Pinto was an opinion, not a fact. The author's use of the word "quite" complicates things further. Wiki guidelines state that we must not include opinions as facts in Wiki entries. If we do that, the content suffers (obviously). Be objective, please. Beobjectiveplease (talk)

Does Pinto attend shul on Shabbat ? is that relevant ? He doesnt, right ? AOL is a fact - He isnt representative of Judaism, as represented even by Bracha's line about a phone to Gd, right ? Thats a fact. Your objectivity is biased. Babasalichai (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Pinto did in fact host a fundraiser - it failed but he did. Include that and I will accept your other change. A more than reasonable compromise. Babasalichai (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Once again will ask that you please discuss changes before making them. Other editors made interim changes and you once again went in and just made them without discussion. Lets use a talk page 1st please. I keep trying to communicate without response. Babasalichai (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Am trying to communicate and you refuse to dialogue. Babasalichai (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Beobjectiveplease, you are still edit warring on the article. I have reverted your last set of edits. Those edits are clearly in dispute. Even if you maybe had consensus a long time ago, edit warring to preserve a consensus is not acceptable. Both sides need to discuss now on the talk page. If you make another edit to the article in a short period of time, I will report you for edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

My edits are in support of other editors. Every editor on that page will say that Baba is simply injecting biased edits. If you'd like to report me for removing biased edits, you may do so, as that is your right. Also, my edits have actually included some of what Baba has said, so it's not like I'm merely removing everything he's writing. Report me if you must, but, let it be know that I am not the problem here. Beobjectiveplease (talk)

You're not understanding. Edit-warring doesn't care whether you are "right" or "wrong". The point is that the issue is in dispute, so we must discuss it on the talk page. By the simple fact that you, until just a few hours ago, weren't engaging on the article's talk page, that makes you part of the problem. Yes, Babasalichai is also a problem here. I have actually requested that the article be temporarily fully protected, so that no one can edit the article. That would force everyone to discuss everything on the talk page first; once we can come to a consensus, then we can worry about making changes. But you cannot continue to just make changes knowing for certain that you are right. 17:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I understand what you are saying, but you also have to understand that I have debated these same changes Baba is making over and over again, with him and with others. Much of what he is doing is retroactively removing things that have been agreed upon by the larger community. Also, I have never considered my edits "right." Unlike Baba, I have taken into consideration the edits, changes, and viewpoints of others. My edits are indicative of that. I appreciate your opinion here and will try to discuss these matters more. Beobjectiveplease (talk)

You are simply lying and have never discusssed these with me - Theres been 1 other user and thats all. And the fact that 2 months you bullied me into accepting a change doesnt mean that your version of history is accurate. Rabbi Pinto's reputation keeps changing and as media continues to emerge so too much this page be changed. Not paying his mortgage is the same issue he had with Obstfeld and is now more relevant. And lastly if we are talking about things which have been accepted, everyone had accepted 15 CPW but you singlehandledly edited it. Babasalichai (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Babasalichai (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Beobjective please, unless you've previously edited under a different account, I do not see you engaging in extensive discussion with Babasalichai in the past. I see about 7 comments on the article's talk page in November and December, and those comments seem primarily to be claims that an IP (who I assume is the same person as Babasalichai) is biased and should be blocked. I see just a few sentences of discussion of the actual contents of the article by you. Please don't act like you've been doing everything right, discussing everything, working off of consensus, etc. I don't even see a lot of "agreed upon by the larger community" on that article's talk page--it's actually pretty sparse. In any event, the article is fully protected right now, so we can all discuss what should be done there. I see problems with the current article (especially the use of highly partisan sources), and I also see problems with much of what Babasalichai wants to add. The way to move forward is to keep discussing, and then reach a consensus. If we can't do that, we can use the steps of dispute resolution, like asking for outside opinions, or asking on for feedback on noticeboards. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It is no secret that Baba has been using multiple accounts and I have often discussed edits with those accounts on their user pages, while we have had some conversations on Pinto's discussion board. Baba was even investigated for this and a formal complaint was filed (there wasn't enough evidence, however, to confirm -- although Baba would change between accounts and continue conversations as if he was on one single account). I do think there are issues with the page, in it's current form, but you have to understand that Baba is coming at this with a closed POV. I will discuss with him, but it seems like a futile exercise given the vandalism he has engaged in, the potentially libelous content he has added, and so on and so forth (look at his work on other pages -- the same is being said elsewhere). He has one POV that he seems ready to push and will likely not budge. However, I am amenable to discussing with him, as that it what must be done. Logic will ultimately shine through, I hope. Beobjectiveplease (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

And have you been using multiple accounts as well? The reason I ask is that when I look at your contribution history, you have never discussed anything on any user pages (outside of a few edits to admins related to the sockpuppet investigation). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I was mistaken, as I thought I had discussions on other pages. Maybe I was just referencing my edit summaries / Pinto discussion / complaints (and I don't have multiple accounts). Either way, I think it's strange that you Qwyrxian are all for defending someone who is primarily one-sided (for instance, see the 15 CP edits on Pinto's page -- you were clearly mistaken there). I'm willing to listen to other editors and take into consideration what they say---even Baba. Beobjectiveplease (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

So since you realize that there are issues what do you think should be changed ? Stop with your legal threats its absurd as this content is legit and well sourced. Can we agree idolatry should be added and underworld (rather than mafia) relationships ? Clearly those are both well sourced right ? Also remove some of the puffery from Arutz 7 which is a highly partisan source.Babasalichai (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, to Baba, see my comments in the discussion page. Qwyrxian, Diannaa, and myself have all said that more sources are needed and that these sources must elaborate on what you speak of (e.g., underworld, etc.). Beobjectiveplease (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Babasalachai, he's not making legal threats, and I never said he was. He used one word (libel) which he probably shouldn't have, since it can be related to legal threats. Right now, I see Beobjectiveplease engaging in some highly productive dialogue on the talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I am questioning the use of Arutz 7 as a reliable source and other than you noone has questioned underworld sources - they are reliable sources surely as reliable as you have used Haaretz for multiple articles as well.Babasalichai (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

When more media comes out will you challenge it this week if it talks about underground and raises other questions ? Babasalichai (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Pinto Websites

Someone may buy websites like pinto.org and place content there, no ? Babasalichai (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they may, but what does that have to do with this article? Such information would probably not be allowed in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Why ? if Someone owned the sites and had content there it wouldnt be ok ? Babasalichai (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As a general rule, self-published sites do not meet the Reliable source guidelines. There are only 2 real exceptions:

1. A site published by the article subject itself (i.e., if Pinto had an "official site" and it was certain that it was made under his auspices), then a limited amount of that info would be reliable. The rules are complex and require interpretation, but it has to do primarily with how factual and self serving the info is. If, for example, Pinto had a website, and it said his full date of birth, we would probably believe that he is telling the truth about that. However, if it said Pinto is the most loved man in the world, that he speaks only the truth, and that he has earned 7 different PhD's, well, we probably wouldn't accept that.
2. A site published by a well-recognized expert in the field could be considered reliable. This person would 1) need to be important and notable enough to have their own wikipage, and 2) be notable specifically in a relevant field (here, that could be things like New York financial dealings, Judaism (or some portion thereof), the history of the rabbinate, etc.). Even then, we would have to be very careful.

Does that answer your questions? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I wouldn't put it past this person to actually buy a website and post negative material, simply so that he can repost it on Wiki. Good thing this isn't allowed, huh, Baba? That he would even ask this question seems to indicate that there is no end to his bias. --Beobjectiveplease (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Babasalichai, but I had to remove your comment, because WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia, even on talk pages. You may not make such claims about living people anywhere. Continuing to do so will result in you being blocked. It is very acceptable to discuss, on the article's talk page, whether or not those claims are supported by sources and can go into the article. You may not state them as fact anywhere, especially away from the talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Sockpupptetry

Amazingly bad behavior on your behalf quite disappointing. When more media comes out and police investigations go public soon on Pinto will you be willing to admit them to wiki ? Babasalichai (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Quote above from beobjectiveplease shows his honesty and he was caught for being a sockpuppet - keep it in mind: "It is no secret that Baba has been using multiple accounts and I have often discussed edits with those accounts on their user pages, while we have had some conversations on Pinto's discussion board. Baba was even investigated for this and a formal complaint was filed (there wasn't enough evidence, however, to confirm -- although Baba would change between accounts and continue conversations as if he was on one single account)." The person who filed the complaint was beobectiveplease in a different name. Babasalichai (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I had a few accounts for a reason, which was discussed with admins and we reached an agreement because my edits are generally very constructive (and, again, I also had a reasoning for it that wasn't about being disruptive or unfair). I never misled users and engaged in cross-talk across pages (unlike another person here). No worries. I will be sure to bring up your actions and will implore them to check-in to your Wiki account use, as well. Thanks. --Beobjectiveplease (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

What was the reason to slander others ? What was the reason you lied and were caught ? Sure check my account use... and keep waking up daily and checking newspapers because the stories are coming as are Pinto police investigations and lawsuits. Babasalichai (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You can email me the reasons you know how to reach me. There was no reason other than your desire to lie but all these things too will be uncovered for the idol worshipper underworld figure Pinto. Babasalichai (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed another comment here from Babasalachai that is a violation of WP:BLP. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

is the so called violation saying it on this users Page instead of on Pintos page ? I thought it'd be Ok to say it since this person works with Pinto and only exists to edit Pintos account ? Babasalichai (talk) 10:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, you have no evidence that this person works with Pinto, so you should not make such a claim. If you have some evidence of that from outside Wikipedia, you may not raise it here, as that is considered WP:Outing, which is strictly forbidden.

Regarding the info I removed, it's actually against the rules for you to say it on Pinto's page, too. You may assert that "Such and such a source asserted that Pinto is bad..." but you may not state it directly yourself. Now, I may be being too strict in my enforcement of this policy, but I feel it's better to stop the problems before they become unambiguous. You're obviously full of negative feelings towards this person, and its very easy for that to spill over into policy violations (either through BLP violations or through non-neutral editing). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

New account?

By chance, did you create the account Wallewins (talk · contribs)? Tiptoety ^talk 04:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not. Is it connected to one of my IPs? I login at work sometimes, so if it came from an IP I use, it may have been a person on my floor (or someone visiting with a laptop). Was it created or used after my temporary ban? Beobjectiveplease (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It shares an IP with you, but given that it has not edited I'm going to assume good faith. Happy editing, Tiptoety ^talk 04:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Fear of breast cancer

You seem to be having trouble with the fact that breast cancer awareness involves fear. Let me suggest that you actually go read the source that's cited at Susan G. Komen for the Cure, instead of guessing. The author is quite direct, and it turns out that the word fear is on thirty-six separate pages in the book. You can see the relevant pages at Amazon.com, if you don't want to pick it up from the library. The whole section on breast cancer branding is worth reading, actually (starts on p. 133).

If you happen to know anything about advertising, it shouldn't surprise you: fear and greed are the fundamental market movers. In the instant case, women who are afraid of breast cancer donate far more money to Komen than people who are unafraid of breast cancer. (Their corporate sponsors are motivated by greed, but the individual donors are motivated significantly by fear.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You're incorrect, though, because you're reasoning is that "breast cancer awareness" from a advertising and marketing perspective involves "fear." However, the entry notes that Komen is tied to "pink ribbon culture," which does not emphasize "fear" at all. Sulik's book is apparently one critical source, discussing Komen as a marketing and advertising entity. Wikipedia is not the place for us to espouse one critical perspective, however, and I question using it outside of Komen's criticism section. In fact, I think it's inappropriate to weave in one critical perspective throughout a Wikipedia page, as if it's fact. This isn't Sulik's book or her definition of what Komen is and does, rather, this is a straightforward, as-objective-as-possible account of what the organization is and does. Beobjectiveplease (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the cited source? I mean, actually read it, not just looked at a sentence or two? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I haven't. But please post the content, verbatim, that articulates that Komen is tied to pink ribbon culture and that pink ribbon culture is predicated upon fear and hope, etc. I'll review, or I'll go borrow the book from the library to examine further. Either way, you're ignoring my point--weaving in one scholar's critical perspective into an entry as if it is an objective / factual statement, rather than a academic critique, is not ideal on Wikipedia. Isn't that a NPOV issue? Beobjectiveplease (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't post five pages of a book because of copyright laws. Furthermore, I think it would be helpful for you to read the entire book, or at least the chapter on breast cancer branding.

Relegating third-party analyses to a separate section on the grounds that an editor says the independent analysis sounds negative violates the WP:STRUCTURE section of the NPOV policy. A straightforward, as-objective-as-possible account does not involve parroting the organization's own storyline as if it were a fact and burying all independent commentary elsewhere in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

First, what you're referring to does not necessarily "violate the WP:STRUCTURE section." Rather, it "could." Also, what I'm advocating for isn't that we simply parrot Komen's storyline. The entry doesn't do that anyway, since there is a standalone criticism section. What I am saying is that, given that there is a criticism section, perhaps a critic's words should go there. Also, one author's criticism is not majority opinion, so perhaps Sulik should be identified rather than relegated to that lower section. There are a number of things that can be done to flesh out an appropriate tone. I don't think weaving one person's viewpoint throughout an entry is the best method, however. Beobjectiveplease (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In the words of the NPOV policy: "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself" is not normally appropriate. We only have two sentences about the meaning of the logo in the whole article, and they belong together. Putting the pleasant POV in the "real" part of the article, and burying the (partly) "unpleasant" POV in a "critics ghetto" is inappropriate.

Additionally, this is not merely the view of one single person. Barbara Ehrenreich has published similar views, and Komen themselves, in the very advertisements they paid to publish when announcing the new logo, talked about the fear of breast cancer: "Imagine the day when survivors like Becky Gabriele won't have to fear for the lives of their daughters." This is not a radical, one-person fringe-y idea: This is the dominant view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Pinto

This is the longest feature ever written on Pinto, 1 he cooperated with and interviewed for. Why did you delete it ? What part do you think should stay ? Babasalichai (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Seperately, I assume when the next media comes out shortly of a similar sort you will accept it with 2 sources right ? Babasalichai (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding some material where warranted. I just think we should discuss first. Beobjectiveplease (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration requires your participation

Please stop editing the article about Susan G. Komen for the Cure until you have answered my multiple questions and objections at Talk:Susan G. Komen for the Cure. I'm not posting these long explanations and quotations from reliable sources for the fun of it. You have recently claimed that a sentence followed immediately by an inline citation was somehow "unsourced", and that other sources somehow don't contain the material that they plainly do. Please join me on the talk page and explain how you have come to these conclusions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, my apologies as I've actually been away. I did see your comments and I will be responding later today (or early this week, at some point). Again, my apologies! 14:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Conduit Logo 2011.png

Thanks for uploading File:Conduit Logo 2011.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Conduit Logo 2011.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Conduit Logo 2011.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 Dude2 (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

conduit (virus)

Hi, it now looks as though conduit (virus) has got the chop by Athaenara. I protected it against creation to stop another move happening. A ban has to be a consensus of people here, so I cannot ban myself. Also a block would be inappropriate as this situation is a content dispute and not enough talking about it has taken place yet. I agree that Conduit (publisher network and platform) is not a virus. If is some kind of adware or malware then that statement can only be included with a reliable source, and not by removing everything else in the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Sonarmobileapplogo.png

Thanks for uploading File:Sonarmobileapplogo.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Wibiyalogo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Wibiyalogo.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. Skier Dude (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Wibiyalogo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Wibiyalogo.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. 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) 06:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Conduit Logo 2011.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Conduit Logo 2011.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) 17:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of CodeFuel

The article CodeFuel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of CodeFuel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article CodeFuel 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/CodeFuel until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kavdiamanju (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of WiO for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WiO 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/WiO until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MSJapan (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WiO LOGO.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WiO 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) 18:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)