User talk:Justen

Hello, world!

Hello, again, world! Justen (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Firefox OS 1.5 home screen.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Firefox OS 1.5 home screen.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion

Hi,

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

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request

Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fiorina

Hi. I recently started two subsections within the section titled "No longer any semblance of neutrality". But you have just moved both subsections elsewhere, into a section about citation verification. I purposely put those subsections where I did because they illustrate the lack of semblance of neutrality. They don't have anything to do with citation verification. Would you put them back, please? See also WP:Talk which generally discourages moving other people's comments around without a very good reason. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've now created a new section for the two subsections I started. However, I still think they are important to show whether there is a semblance of neutrality. Moreover, these subsections were started after you started the section on semblance of neutrality, and therefore belong below the semblance of neutrality header.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and rearranged these sections in a way that you hopefully will find acceptable.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about that. Another editor was sectioning things earlier in a way that caused unintentional nesting, and I thought your nesting might have been unintentional at first. Thanks for fixing my mistake! Justen (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SUL merge

I noticed your question before you deleted it. You'd probably be best served by an SUL merge once it's possible. Right now it isn't but keep an eye on m:SRUC or file there now and they will process when it's technically possible. Hope that helps. Best regards. –xeno^talk 02:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the head's up! I'll definitely keep an eye on that space. Justen (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]