User talk:Gleaman

Large number of category edits

Please be aware that your addition of Category:Academic journals is causing the normal usage of our category system to be bypassed, for example, here. The articles you are tagging are already in a hierarchy of specialized categories that ultimately leads up to the same thing, Category:Academic journals. It would save work for some other people if you are willing to discuss your additions at WT:Categories for discussion. Editors there will be able to advise whether your new edits make sense.

I took the liberty of undoing the redirect of your talk page to User talk:Slavik1990. I imagine that such a redirect would keep you from getting the orange banner when you receive messages. I suspect that you actually have two accounts now (both the old and the new), and the redirect makes things confusing. EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Some other tips

Hi, the same as the above goes for categories like "philosophical literature", which contains "philosophical journals". So an article tagged with "philosophical journals" therefore falls automatically under "philosophical literature". I am slowly cleaning up top categories like "academic journals" (which ideally should be empty, all its entries having been categorized more exactly), so please don't add any journals to that category any more. When creating an article about a journal, if you omit the "language" field from an infobox, this will default to "English", with the correct wikilink. Do not link to journal, this is a disambiguation page. Instead, you should use either academic journal of scientific journal, as the case may be. Sometimes there are even more specific articles available, such as mathematical journal. Hope this helps. Do not hesitate to drop a note on my talk page if you need any help. --Crusio (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

International journal for/of applied philosophy

Hi again, in cases like this, the easiest way to handle this is to move a page, by clicking the "move" tab on top of a page. That way, the edit history is conserved (important for the open access license) and a redirect is automatically created. I will undo your changes in "for" and request speedy deletion of "of", so that this move can be made correctly. Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

American Journal of Semiotics

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of American Journal of Semiotics, and it appears to include a substantial copy of https://secure.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/journal?openform&journal=pdc_ajs. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy Research Archives

Hi, I think you should move this to Journal of Philosophical Research and make it a subsection ("History") of an article on the journal under its current title. Unless there is enough material to justify two separate articles, I think that in general we should keep the information on a journal under its different titles together. --Crusio (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem: The American Journal of Semiotics

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as The American Journal of Semiotics, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from https://secure.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/journal?openform&journal=pdc_ajs, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:The American Journal of Semiotics and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, The American Journal of Semiotics, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:The American Journal of Semiotics with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:The American Journal of Semiotics. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:The American Journal of Semiotics saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! – Toon 21:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Gita Pullapilly

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Gita Pullapilly, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://thewaywegetbymovie.com/gita-pullapilly, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Gita Pullapilly and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Gita Pullapilly, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Gita Pullapilly with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Gita Pullapilly. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Gita Pullapilly saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! – Toon 14:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy Documentation Center

Hi, this article is starting to look a bit like a catalog, which is something that is discouraged on WP (see WP:ISNOT). I don't think there are any "list" type articles dedicated to the journals from one single publishers, but one thing you might do is create a category for "Journals published by..." and categorize all journals with that particular category (see Category:Academic journals by publisher). --Crusio (talk) 12:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Understood - we intend to reorganize this and provide more explanatory information this week. Thanks once again for your careful attention.

Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, and it appears to include a substantial copy of https://secure.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/journal?openform&journal=pdc_acpaproc. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! -Mike Restivo (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Journal covers

I re-tagged the journal covers that you uploaded. As far as I can see, these covers were not made by "George Leaman", although the scans may have been. But even that is not enough on WP, because anybody can say they are a certain person, but that is not necessarily true (I'm not accusing you of lying, please don't get me wrong, just arguing from a -necessarily- legalese point of view). In addition, this is not necessary, because there is something like "fair use". You may need to give some more justification for the use of these cover images, though. See the cover of Genes, Brain and Behavior for an example (I always use that as a template myself when I upload a cover image). --Crusio (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Could you please tell me why you are continuing to upload covers under Creative Commons licenses, despite my note above? Perhaps you can provide a link to a statement confirming that these covers are "a public domain journal cover image and not protected by copyright"? I have not been able to find anything like that on the website of these journals. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Crusio, thanks as always for your careful attention. I looked at the Genes, Brain and Behavior cover image files you referenced and I did not recognize information that would be sufficient to satisfy WP's legal requirement (with are not clear to us, but with which we want to cooperate). I have clarified that I am the author of the file (not the cover design), and since these are low res images indended to make the title and their contents more widely recognized this satisfies our understanding of fair use. Our intention is to facilitate sharing - tell me which license you find appropriate. Gleaman (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• That's what I expected, that you made the files, but not the images. For each cover, you should copy the contents of the G2B cover image and change the information given there, so that it matches the particular cover you are interested in (i.e., the journal name, the original website where you found the image, etc). For the license, you should use the "fair use" template that is used for G2B (and that I put on some of the images that you uploaded yesterday). Hope this helps. --Crusio (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Crusio, thanks. Your refernce to the "fair use template" for Genes, Brain and Behavior is not clear to me. Are you referring to info referenced at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:G2Bcover.jpg? Gleaman (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, that's the one I'm talking about. Just click edit, copy everything and paste it to the cover you want to "regularize", changing the G2B info to the info pertaining to the cover you're dealing with. I have to leave now, if you still have trouble, I can do one for you as an example tomorrow. --Crusio (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Inqctcover.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Inqctcover.jpg. 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) 20:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Adcover.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Adcover.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

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:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Enphcover.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Enphcover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Skier Dude (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Eecover.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Eecover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Skier Dude (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Gfpjcover.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gfpjcover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Skier Dude (talk) 06:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Stpcover.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Stpcover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Skier Dude (talk) 06:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Etudphencover.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Etudphencover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Skier Dude (talk) 06:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Faithphilcover.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Faithphilcover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Skier Dude (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Philtopcover.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Philtopcover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Skier Dude (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Owlcover.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Owlcover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Skier Dude (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Questionscover.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Questionscover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Skier Dude (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Philtheocover.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Philtheocover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Skier Dude (talk) 06:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Ajscover.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ajscover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Skier Dude (talk) 06:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Epochecover.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Epochecover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Skier Dude (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Jprcover.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jprcover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Skier Dude (talk) 06:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Ijapcover.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ijapcover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Skier Dude (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Sptcover.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sptcover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Skier Dude (talk) 06:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Technecover.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Technecover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Skier Dude (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Studneocover.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Studneocover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Skier Dude (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:IABS logo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:IABS logo.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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Beqcover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Beqcover.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) 08:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Beqcover.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Beqcover.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Techné.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Techné.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) 03:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tpcover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tpcover.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) 18:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Center for Environmental Philosophy

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Center for Environmental Philosophy 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 an organization or company, 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, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. StewartNetAddict (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Center for Environmental Philosophy

Hi Gleaman, you recently removed a deletion tag from Center for Environmental Philosophy. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove speedy deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the tag. Although the deletion proposal may be incorrect, removing the tag is not the correct way for you to contest the deletion, even if you are more experienced than the nominator. Instead, please use the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. Remember to be patient, there is no harm in waiting for another experienced user to review the deletion and judge what the right course of action is. As you are involved, and therefore potentially biased, you should refrain from doing this yourself. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Chesterton.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Chesterton.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) 04:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ipqcover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ipqcover.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) 06:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ascover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ascover.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) 06:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Etudphilcovernew.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Etudphilcovernew.gif. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Tpmagcover.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Tpmagcover.gif. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ispcover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ispcover.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) 04:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Thghtcover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Thghtcover.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 questions, please post them here.
• I will automatically 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 ask an admin to turn it off here.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Thghtcover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Thghtcover.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 questions, please post them here.
• I will automatically 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 ask an admin to turn it off here.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 13:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Thghtcover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Thghtcover.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 questions, please post them here.
• I will automatically 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 ask an admin to turn it off here.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Philosopher's Index and related problems

I'm an admin here very much concerned with improving our coverage on the traditional humanities. In the course of things, my attention was called to the article on Richard H. Lineback; this proved to be an exact copy from the website http://philinfo.org/about/ and I accordingly had no choice but to delete it--although he is certainly eminent enough that there should be an article. The article on its publisher Philosopher's Information Center, is in large party also copyvio, copied from their website--it will need to be extensively rewritten. These two articles were submitted by the user Philindex -- as corporate user names are not acceptable, the user has been blocked by another administrator.

I assume you are George Leaman, the director of the center, according to its web site. Even should this not be the case, the problems below will be the same.

Philosophy Research Index, Philosophy Documentation Center, were written by you. They certainly seem as if substantial parts were taken from previously published material, though I have not checked yet to find out where. Please review them to make sure. If you wish to use such material, you must explicitly license the rights to the material according to our licensing, using the CC-BY-SA and the GNU licenses, as explained in WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:Donating copyrighted materials; be aware that these licenses give everyone in the world an irrevocable license to reuse and alter the material, even for commercial purposes. Normally it is better not to do so; the over-formal style of most such material is not appropriate here.

As a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without Conflict of Interest; it's not impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest, but it's relatively more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know. Among the things that the public wants to know when they look for information about your center in a encyclopedia is not a complete list of the publications to which you provide access--they will naturally go to your web site for this. page, you should say whom you are working for.

As particular problems:

The PDC article contains a long list of journals and other publications. We very rarely include a list of publications in the article on a publisher: the proper place for this is their web site. Personally, I am inclined to be quite flexible when it comes to the traditional humanities, but the list there is likely to be challenged. And some things must be removed: First, we never include a list of the journals hosted by a particular site, in contrast to those published. Please remove from the list the ones that are published elsewhere, and change the text to indicate this. I can do this, but you can do this more easily. A list limited to the journals they publish will be much easier to defend, & I will try to defend it, though I cannot predict what the consensus will be. We also never include a list of monographs and miscellaneous [publications. Those portions of the list will need to be removed, with the exception of any that are particularly notable; I think a list of notable reference books might possibly be defensible, and I will try to defend this also, though I am quite unsure I would succeed. The principle here is WP:DIRECTORY

The list of organization for which you provide service is quite unsuitable by any standard: it would be considered purely promotional content, and I have removed it.

The information on Philosopher's Index in the encyclopedia is not consistent: is it published by the PDC, or by the PIC? What is the difference between the two organizations? The articles are totally unclear about this. And what is the difference between the PI and the PRI? Is the PrI expected to replace the PI, or to be a more comprehensive index including less formal material, or a supplemental product including only less formal material? This also needs to be explained. I can undoubtedly find this out, but you can do it much more quickly.

I see my colleague here Crusio, with whom I have long worked on academic journals, has given you similar advice a few months earlier. Everything he has said is quite correct, and you need to follow it. The files that have been deleted, can be restored with the correct licenses. We do include covers of periodicals, but they must be called fair use, not given a CC license unless you can prove you are the copyright holder of the image or authorized to do so, and do it according to the formal rules at WP:DCM--labeling them as fair use is very much easier.

I look forward to cooperating with you for improving our content in this area. As a research librarian myself, I know the benefits of cooperative work--which, indeed, is why I am here, and why I have been working on academic material here for over four years now. Please feel free to enter into a discussion here, or on my web page, or by email to dgoodman at Princeton. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Questionspypcover.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Questionspypcover.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. Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Questions Nr.12, 2012.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:Questions Nr.12, 2012.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) 04:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Google Scholar

Hi, I see that you have added "indexed by Google Scholar" to a bunch of journal articles. GS is trying very hard (and succeeding reasonably well) to be all-inclusive, so mentioning in an article that a journal is "indexed by Google Scholar" is absolutely trivial. That is why this is never mentioned in any article on any academic journal. (I routinely remove this -like DOAJ or OCLC- from listings in journal articles). It's like saying that Barack Obama is included on Google... Perhaps you can self-revert these additions. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the feedback. It may be trivial for open access content, but I assure you that it is not trivial for content that is not open access. We listed Google Scholar because it shows that the programming work has been done to make this possible, which is relevant information about the journal (particularly for authors). I understand and agree about DOAJ and OCLC, or any other service that makes no requirement of the journal itself. Gleaman (talk)

• I disagree, being not indexed by GS would perhaps be something worth mentioning, but being indexed by GS is nowadays about as trivial as saying that the editors are humans... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying as a matter of Google Scholar policy - they'd like to cover all scholarly materials they can reach in electronic format. I explained that it was not trivial to allow Google Scholar to cover content that is not open access, in this case subscription based publications. I meant fulltext indexing, which means access to the entire content. This is easy if a journal is open access but not easy if the journal has to rely on subscriptions or memberships to cover its costs. What makes it hard is the need to prevent fulltext display by programming a redirect on all hits to the same landing page. Not all subscription based electronic journals in philosophy are set up to do this, which is what makes it notable. Gleaman (talk)

• I hear you, but doing this kind of things is what you may expect from any halfway serious publisher. Setting up a website with access restricted to subscribers only must involve some non-trivial programming, too, yet that is not something that we add to articles on publishers or journals either. If there is a publisher somewhere out there who is unable to have GS cover its journals (and there are reliable sources for this), that would perhaps worth mentioning in an article. But the fact that a journal has a website or is indexed in GS is absolutely trivial: Even though the programming effort behind it is not trivial, it's standard in modern journal publishing. Fifteen years ago it was noteworthy if a journal was available online; nowadays it is becoming noteworthy if a journal is available in print only... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's trivial in STM journals but I think you are over generalizing. In philosophy, as in many other humanities fields, the development of online access has lagged because there is so much less money involved than in STM publishing. A related effect of this is evident in the traditional indexing services that cover only a fraction of the existing literature. For example, my colleagues at CNRS/INIST have several times told me that the selectivity of their coverage is due in large part to the limits of their budgets. Same is true at Thompson/ISI, or even Scopus, much less them many specialized indexing services. They can't afford to cover everything they'd like to cover. Google can. So as a consequence it is not listed? I'm not talknig about Google Books - just Google Scholar. Gleaman (talk)

• Exactly. We list things that are of importance for the subject of the article in question. DOAJ tries to include all OA journals, so it is not selective and as a consequence, inclusion in it is almost automatic and doesn't say much about a journal. Same for GS. Other databases, for whatever reasons, are more selective and therefore being included in them does say something meaningful about a journal, hence that is something worthy of note in an article about that journal. If we write a biography of an academic, we don't mention that their faculty page can be found on Google, either. But if they can be found in ISI Highly Cited, then that should be mentioned. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Virtu Foundation, Gleaman!

Wikipedia editor SPat just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

try searching for secondary sources, for eg,: newspaper articles

To reply, leave a comment on SPat's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Disambiguation link notification for June 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cultura (journal), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Lang (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) 11:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Business Ethics Journal Review

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Business Ethics Journal Review, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, 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. (See section A7 of 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 this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Fiddle Faddle 23:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Business Ethics Journal Review

I didn't see a copy of it anywhere- did you mean the Business and Professional Ethics Journal? As far as that article goes... offhand I'd suggest finding sources that aren't primary. By WP:PRIMARY I mean that the only two sources on the article are from the journal itself. The problem is that primary sources can never show notability since they're written by the journal itself and/or hosted on their website. Primary sources can be used to back up small details, but not anything else. For example, if the journal won an award you'd have to find something other than their website to back that up. That was the only big thing I saw for that.

I've moved a copy of the BEJR into your userspace at User:Gleaman/Business Ethics Journal Review. Now as far as that goes, you have to show where it's considered to be notable per WP:NJOURNAL. It's pretty new, so it has that against it when it comes to finding sources. Academic journals related stuff usually takes a while to start gaining sources unless it's something particularly attention grabbing. The only source on the article was a primary source, as it was written by the people who started the journal. The thing to remember is that even though this journal reviews notable journals, that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by that fact. Think of it this way: a newspaper can write about a famous actor, but they don't gain notability by that fact. As far as promotional content goes, it wasn't anything major- the big reason I deleted it was because it didn't show that it had any notability, but the phrase "established to support continuing commentary and criticism of scholarly material" kind of rang a few warning signals. I don't think it wouldn't have been so bad if not for the lack of sourcing. In any case, it's in your userspace so you can continue to work on it. I didn't offhand see enough sourcing out there to really show that it could be in the mainspace yet, but there's nothing that says that you can't keep it in your userspace. I should've thought of moving it there beforehand, so I apologize for that. Normally I'm better about remembering to do that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• The speedy deletion caused confusion for me too. I didn’t have a copy of the final listing as submitted - my mistake. My understanding has been that Wikipedia should be a complete reference source, and I created the listing with this in mind. The source I provided included an ISSN, OCLC cataloging record, and Library of Congress control number. Should I only create listings for “notable” journals? If so I’d appreciate more info about this. In listings for other journals I’ve listed notable authors and these lists are generally (not always) deleted. I’ve now rewritten the entry and don’t know how to proceed. Should I post in my user space for your review and approval? Gleaman (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, articles should only be created for notable journals. If they meet WP:GNG, great. If not, many will still meet WP:NJournals. Lists of authors who have published in a journal generally get deleted (and should be deleted) per the journal article writing guide and WP:NOTINHERITED.

• I’ve rewritten the entry and posted it in my user space for your review. Is this version OK? It explains the journal's purpose, which is notable in this field.Gleaman (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BEJR cover image, Aug,2013.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BEJR cover image, Aug,2013.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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Business Ethics Journal Review

The article Business Ethics Journal Review has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

New journal, too young to have become notable yet. No independent sources, not listed in any selective major database. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. As for the "journals covered", WP:NOTINHERITED obviously applies.

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. Randykitty (talk) 10:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Business Ethics Journal Review for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Business Ethics Journal Review 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/Business Ethics Journal Review 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. Randykitty (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ijapcover2.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ijapcover2.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. Randykitty (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Asnewcover.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Asnewcover.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. Stefan2 (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Philosophy doc center logo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Philosophy doc center logo.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. Randykitty (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Journal of Religion and Violence

The article Journal of Religion and Violence has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

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. Randykitty (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Journal of Religion and Violence for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Journal of Religion and Violence 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/Journal of Religion and Violence 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Logos & Episteme

The article Logos & Episteme has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable relatively new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

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. Randykitty (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Logos & Episteme for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Logos & Episteme 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/Logos & Episteme 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Owlcover1.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Owlcover1.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. Stefan2 (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jrv wiki.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jrv wiki.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. Stefan2 (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logos-episteme-cover.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logos-episteme-cover.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. Stefan2 (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Tej-cover2015.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Tej-cover2015.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Beqcover.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Beqcover.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. Randykitty (talk) 12:19, 24 March 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) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tpcover2011.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tpcover2011.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. --B-bot (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Idonelinecover.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Idonelinecover.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. --B-bot (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sptvolume27cover.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sptvolume27cover.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. --B-bot (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Spt-cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Spt-cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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) 03:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Gleaman. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Gleaman. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Gleaman. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Etudphilcovernew.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Etudphilcovernew.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Gleaman. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Gleaman/Business Ethics Journal Review

Hi, this draft has been lingering in your user space since 2013. Are you planning to develop this into a full article? If so, please do so promptly, drafts are not supposed to hang around in userspace for years. If not, please add a {{db-author}} tag to it, so that it can be deleted. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Arendt Studies

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

Non-notable, relatively-new, journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. WP:TOOSOON.

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Philosophy Documentation Center affiliation

Your language of "our site" combined with your history of contributions on Wikipedia leads me to believe you have some affiliation with the Philosophy Documentation Center in some way. Note that undisclosed paid editing is not allowed on Wikipedia, and that may lead to blocks. However, this is an easy thing to deal with, as outlined by the top section of our journal writing guide. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I also note the guide probably has had a few updates since you last read it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I had not seen these changes. I am not paid for this work but I understand the concern.Gleaman (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Levinas Studies

Hello, Gleaman,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Nsk92 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I’ve proposed an article that you started, Levinas Studies, for deletion because it meets one of the relevant criterion.The particular issue can be located in the notice, that is now-visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to prevent the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click Publish Changes button.

But, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the raised issues. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Nsk92}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Nsk92 (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Agstmcover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Agstmcover.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) 02:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Envirophilcover2.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Envirophilcover2.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Techne-cov.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Techne-cov.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sbelogo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sbelogo.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nsjcovernew.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nsjcovernew.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Philosophica

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Philosophica for deletion

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Randykitty (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Gleaman/Business Ethics Journal Review

User:Gleaman/Business Ethics Journal Review, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gleaman/Business Ethics Journal Review and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Gleaman/Business Ethics Journal Review during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nsjcovernew.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nsjcovernew.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Grorp (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Raven: A Journal of Vexillology

The article Raven: A Journal of Vexillology has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article reads like self-promotion, especially the special issues section. There is also no indication on the page of why it is important enough to be on Wikipedia. The primary source is the journal itself, which is heavily biased.

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page 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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)