User talk:Lame Name

2==Get a Life== You are the most annoying user on wikipedia. You really need to get a life and not act like the Nazi who knows EVERYTHING about Wikipedia. It's obvious you have no life, but wouldn't you time be better spent playing World of Warcraft with like-minded dweebs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.171.244 (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It is normal practice to add new comments at the bottom of the page ;-) Lame Name (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

So the IP address reveals a Road Runner account via Encino. They have contributed here twice (perhaps a little too soon for Godwin's law) on the very days I had edited the Joe Brooks article. What are the chances? Lame Name (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly a sock. Off2riorob (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

We appreciate your help and hopefully we have saved our article on Intercultural Open University. Your suggestions helped a lot.Stretch call (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Aleksey Igudesman

hi Lame Name first of all thanks for adding the references! like it a lot i have one question - why did you delete the igudesman and joo part? i think it is very very important to have this included, as it is a very important section of his life at the moment! have a nice day!

Ted Fellows and Stroud

Thanks for your query re Ted Fellows and Stroud. Ted had so much more than just a "career in journalism". As editor of every notable farming magazine in the UK from the 1970s through to the 1990s he and his team influenced and shaped the agricultural industry for more than thirty years - a period during which it underwent more upheaval than at any other time in history. These magazines were also among the most successful business-to-business titles in the UK, winning such prestigious titles as PPA business magazine of the year etc. Please don't underestimate the importance of this industry to the British economy, and the influence these magazines had on it. Particularly, in a pre-internet world. Ted may not be as familiar to the wider public as an actress who has had a couple of appearances on The Bill, and therefore warrants an entire entry on Wikipedia, but his influence was broader and far-reaching. The entry also nicely illustrates the attraction Stroud holds for people who appreciate this creative enclave in the Cotswold Hills. Swollefs (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Eo newsletter 50 1986.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Eo newsletter 50 1986.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Lame Name, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Oldeotriangle.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Oldeotriangle.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving pages

Please do not copy and paste pages to another page, use the move feature which is available at the top of pages. Thanks. asenine ^t/_c\^r (fc: f2abr04) 10:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I was the one that put it up for CSD. It should be deleted and then properly moved. Have a nice day! :) asenine ^t/_c\^r (fc: f2abr04) 10:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Homeschooling External Links

Hello, I have removed the links you placed at homeschooling. As they don't really fit in the middle of an article, and are in french. Please read through what should be linked, for the wikipedia policy on external links. Leave a message here or on the homeschooling talk page if you have any questions or comments. Greetings, Species8473 (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

ZAPPA FAC

Again, thanks for your comments and helping hand. In this edit at the FAC page, you write in the edit summary that you support the article. You did, however, not put in a boldface "support" on the FAC page itself. If you want, you could put it in making it more easy for the decising editors to get an overview over the status for the nomination. Cheers! --HJensen, talk 14:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding your comment to the end of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frank Zappa‎ supporting mine. I really feel like something went seriously wrong in this nomination and appreciate that someone else thinks so also and is willing to express it. Thank you. —Mattisse (Talk) 11:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment on the sound files in the re-submission! Any other comments (or support ;-) ) are most appreciated. Cheers! --HJensen, talk 17:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Badminton

The page can only be accessed if you create an account at the Good Schools Guide. I hope this isn't a problem. I could do a print screen and show you the phrase in a picture format, but I'm not sure if this is against copyright or something....ThanksThedarkfourth (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Charlotte Mason question

Hi...just wondered why you reverted the link to WES home......this organisation traces its origins back to the parents national education union which CM founded. To me this is topical...but i could be wrong and would appreciate knowing your opinion Kind rgds Colin Collieman (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I had a good ferret around the site and could not see that it added anything to the article. If there is a direct link back to Mason then it could be mentioned in the article itself but apart from the use of the name there was no obvious connection. The site was selling material which, given the history of such spam links previously added to this article, could be used a precedent for further spamming. I felt the link touched WP:ELNO on several points. Lame Name (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It is a genuine link back to CM.....but its a very old site ( demon host) and doesnt really have the level of verification which you probably need. I am not sure that being an old and not very good site prevents it from being a link.....it is genuinely a "descendent" from her home education ideas.However i can understand the worries about spam and so on.

Collieman (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

L.A.M.F.

Hey there, I see you've been having the same problem I've been having with Peppermankk using POV at the L.A.M.F. page. Please help me keep an eye on the page as he likes to revert any edits that mention "punk". Thanks. --Tim010987 (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Winchcombe Info

Hi, I'm new to this editing game as you might have guessed; but can you explain why you removed the reference to the community website www.winchcombe.info from the 'community' section at the Winchcombe page? Winchcombe Info is a completely non profit-making service provided as a community benefit. Regards, Winchcomber (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

university

please do not edit war over the article--leave it alone until I can get to it this evening. I have considerable experience getting such articles right. DGG (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

status section for Intercultural Open University

The orginating contributors of this article agreed with your assessment that this article should be deleted from Wikepedia. However, the adminstrator did not agree. The problem that we have is that there is not a third party source for this article. The two questionable ones that you found have been around since 2003-2004. Both of these articles are biased and outdated and were written based on website information in 03-04. In fact if you read the Bear article you will find that our founder emailed the author to inform the Bears that the claimed associations were no longer a part of IOU. The contributors felt that we had the right to place a status update to make the article balanced and fair. The UNESCO article was not true then and is not true now. We have found a double standard on Wikepedia when it comes to certain postings. You asked us to remove our faculty listing and distinguished graduate list under the tag of lack of notability. In our search, we have found numerous educational institutions with similiar listings that are tag free. We have also found numerous institutions that use only their website for references. On a personal note, we find some of your rhetoric quite offensive. Calling the article undeserving of a Wikepedia listing and using the fraud connotation, creates a very hostile working relationship for all parties. We would all be appreciative if you would not use such inflammatory language. IOU is registered in the Netherlands under Dutch law and is registered as an institution of higher education in nine other countries. I think all of us need to show respect for all the people presently involved in making this foundation relative in higher education.Stretch call (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Bear Article

It was unnecessary for you to just send me the entire article from the Bear article. All of the contributors are quite fimiliar with this article. In fact we know the article from line to line. This Bear article is not an unknown quanity to us. The questions that we posed to you had to do more with your "rush-to-judgment" attitude toward our article. The idea that you could bltantly use the word fraudlant in association with our program and in particular this article. We do not have any problem with the Bear article but we do want it used in the proper context with both points of view expressed. We would appreciate if you would address the attitude that you have toward this article and the double standards that exist as to listenings on Wikepedia regarding educational institutions. All contributors to this article are educators with impeccable credentials.Stretch call (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)75.197.192.172 (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

sorry to hear the article was deleted! I was in the process of changing it when it was deleted! With regard to the 'no fans or mascot'; they have fans, as was deemed in the fans section but no mascot, as they have no mascot. With regard also to the 'never winning anything' this is because, no, they have never won anything as they are a relatively new club. Coventry City FC hadn't won anything 'major' until the FA CUP in 1987, and have won little, if not anything since, but I don't see their page being deleted within 3 weeks of creation! I will track down the person who had the gaul to delete the article whilst I was in the process of rectifying all 'apparent' faults! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Covkid (talk • contribs) 17:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I understand that, however, Bristol UWE has its own website, a facebook group and is listed within other league websites. Would this count? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Covkid (talk • contribs) 17:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

sorry

I'm sorry I found it on a website and didn't look more, I'll make sure my info is correct now. 28club (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFeds (talk • contribs)

Edward Elgar Publishing

I have, once again, removed your posting on the Edward Elgar Publishing entry. The article you are linking to is not in any way neutral. If you read the posting you are linking to carefully and all of the documents the writer has available, it should be quite clear that he is not a reliable source. Katywhumpus (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

EFQUEL

Thanks! And to answer your question: yes it does. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Odcombe

Hi, Can I ask why you removed the governance section from Odcombe? also you removed the bold from Lower Odcombe and Higher Odcombe - these were bold because these are redirects to this article.— Rod ^talk 17:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, The governance section added nothing that was notable (in a run of the mill kind of way) to the article. What parish councils do is covered by the Parish council article and did not need duplicating here. The pertinent bits were retained. Have moved Higher and Lower Odcombe to the beginning where they can easily be found but they were never in danger of being lost in the body of text and their boldness seemed inapposite to the flow of the article. Lame Name (talk) 06:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If you look at WP:UKCITIES it recommends including much of this info - what may be run of the mill to a local is unlikely to be familiar to someone from another continent & it is best not to require readers to visit another article to get relevant information (eg Parish council).— Rod ^talk 09:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll see your WP:UKCITIES and I'll raise you WP:LOCAL and WP:TOWN ;-)

But from WP:UKCITIES#Governance....

The article has:

• A note on the various tiers of government that are relevant to the settlement.

and:

• How the settlement is governed today—is it part of a civil parish, or unitary district? Does it have any wards? Is it a ward? Does it have a mayor or Royal bestowments (charters)? etc.

To be included in History section:

• Changes in governance made throughout the history of the settlement—what was its former status? its former administrative district and/or county? etc

Not applicble:

• Parliamentary representation (both UK and, if other than England (minus London), its devolved/assembly level representation), including who its (UK) MP is.

???:

• A note on any grants of arms to the settlement's council.

But mostly: "However, the suggestions on this page are merely guidelines, not rules written in stone. They permit the exercise of common sense". Odcombe is not a city. It can be described in a succinct article.

Surely linkage is how Wikipedia works. A user would expect to jump to the parish council article to read the information once rather than trawling through the dull duplication at every small town article they come across. Lame Name (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

rollback

It seems to me you have a need for the rollback button, which I have given you. Please be aware that it is only meant for rolling back vandalism (straightforwardly bad faith edits). If you don't want rollback, please let me know and I'll turn it off. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment on RoomSaver debate

You stated "Delete Would this not have made a Speedy G11? The references are of the Press Release/Promotional/Life Style/Directory listing variety without any supporting independent sources. As any hotel with empty rooms will offer a discount the only notable aspect here seems to be their creation of a coupon business to achieve the same but this aspect seems to have passed un-noted anywhere."

I would agree with you except for the fact that legitimate and reliable sources were used along with a few Press Releases. Those press releases however are only used to attribute fact based information, i.e. information about the website and a few other pieces of information that are backed up with further independent sources including articles from Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine, Hotel & Motel Management Magazine, The Orlando Sentinel, The St. Petersburg Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and Business Wire Magazine, which are not Press releases, promotional, life style or directory listings. Just because an independent source can not be linked to online, does not make it unreliable. The page does not qualify for Speedy G11 for this reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BDHuneycutt (talk • contribs) 19:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Stroud education

Interesting that your usual eagle eye failed to spot Facts? bordering on POV statements until I made my edit to the Stroud article. They've all been there for over four years! See [this edit] made by Flapdragon in 2005. Cheers ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 19:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Janet Goliger

Hello Lame Name, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Janet Goliger - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW (Talk) 23:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Kimaera

It's not a copyright any more but it may not be notable enough for an article. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 16:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Tagging of Peter Kowalke

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Peter Kowalke. I do not think that Peter Kowalke fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because This person may or may not be notable in fact, but being the publisher and editor of a documentary and a frequent confernece speaker is at least a claim of notability. See WP:CSD#A7 for more details on the use of this deletion criterion. (note the statement "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source.") If you still think this person is not notable, please start a discussion at Articles for Deletion.. I request that you consider not re-tagging Peter Kowalke for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. . DES ^(talk) 16:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Kobi Arad

Time for a noticeboard discussion, bringing up several of the points you and I have both noted? (See my discussion on Kobi Arad talk page.) Best Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Balls

You removed my tag, you just said it was un nessesary? This comment..I googled it and didn't get anything, is there a citation to support this statement in the lede.. Edd Balls is a British Labour Co-operative politician . Off2riorob (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean apart from every bio and the description of the author on every article he writes, etc. etc. like here and here and here and here and here etc. etc. Lame Name (talk) 14:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

These still do not seem to support the comment, Edd Balls is a british labour party politician, this is true isn't it? Off2riorob (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

He also happens to be a member of the Co-operative party: see their website for a fuller explanation. (And it's Ed not Edd) --Jubilee♫clipman 04:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD of Kobi Arad and sockpuppetry of its creator Knoblauch129

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kobi Arad
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Knoblauch129

Your comments welcome! --Jubilee♫clipman 04:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Tewkesbury

I see what you mean. In my view it's superfluous to add the overall tag when there are tags on individual statements - but there were an awful lot of them. So I've gone and found references myself; it wasn't difficult, Tewkesbury being such a famous place. I removed the statements I couldn't find supporting evidence for, so I think the article should be in reasonable shape now. Deb (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Kathy Clugston Tom Tom

Hi, Regarding Kathy's voiceover work - references have been made on The Scott Mills Show, and in a Radio 4 programme on Sat Navs last July(ish). It's is also on the Unofficial Mills forum (the Official-Unofficial Scott Mills forum), as well as if you check on a Tom Tom the profile is called "Kathy (Irish)". --OrangeStu (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, it has been discussed on The Scott Mill's show in the past, however the content is no longer available on iPlayer to provide a link to the exact link to the show in which it was discussed. Unsure what to suggest. --OrangeStu (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Dean Davies

I have read the notability criteria twice and as far as I can tell have satisfied everything it lists. If you are to keep adding the notability tag every day to something I am working on, you might have the courtesy to put something on the discussion page justifying your reasoning. The man has been listed in the New York Times for his film work and I have the film on my desk right now and watched his performance last night. How much more notable do you have to be. DPWiki01 (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I see where you are coming form it even if I do not wholly agree with it. Reading the guidelines, there seem to be two sets of tests about notability (in my view) and the subject appears to satisfy one of them and in the way the guidelines are worded, one is enough. Improving the verification and notability of the article will almost certainly involve me ordering press cuttings at the city business library and with work and the weather that may take me some time. So, let's park that issue! First off, the Human Traffic page is poor and as I am returning to wikipedia after a long absence I'd quite like to work on improving the article on the film. My main frustration with the format is that one's work can get so interrupted as to make it impossible to proceed. Instead, perhaps I might invite you to look over the referencing work that I am doing on the article to improve it. Then perhaps we can discuss sourcing to improve the overall text? (That is, of course, if you are interested: music culture films and film in general is a bit of an obsession for me). DPWiki01 (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Article revert

Hey I contributed to the tuna fish article some time ago so it was in my watchlist, I saw that you reverted the deletion of substantiated info by the Ip user, just wanted to say thanks. I don't know if you care for barn stars but I am awarding you this Barnstar in light of your continued work on Wikipedia, including the last revert on Tuna fish Sandwich article (though I wish it was a different or more prominent article to elicit it). Happy editingTheo10011 (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

My edits

"followed a trail of your edits I note that most of them are marked as minor edits when they are obviously more than that" Well, I was not trying to hide my edits. Admittedly, I did not read the definition of 'minor edit.' Now that I have, I agree that they are not minor and I will not misuse the checkbox. I mistook it to mean "less than 1-2 sentences not substantially changing the overall document."

"I suspect many of your contributions lack the notability required for inclusion in Wikipedia." Feel free to examine my sources for their own merit or vs. those I try to balance against.

"Much of the content of your newly created articles could be included within existing articles to improve them but they do not really warrant a stand alone article." Tell me which ones these are and I will be happy to adjust. :) I was trying to follow what I saw as examples. If I am following examples of undesired splintering, then I will certainly clean the mess I've created. I could see combining Academic acceleration with A Nation Deceived, for example. Pulling Cluster grouping into gifted education would unequally weight that subsection, but I would have no problem with it.

"Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and articles such as the C-MITES one seem to be more advertising than encyclopaedic" Again, I was following an example in that case. I don't work for C-MITES and I can't vouch for them, but if you delete C-MITES, please take down the stanford EPGY, the duke link and all the similar stuff from the calling page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gifted_and_talented_programmes), which itself should not exist according to that standard. However, I'd encourage you to click Random article a few dozens times. I found a substantial portion of pages refering to 3rd-rate athletes and garage bands. I'm not an admin, but I'd ditch that garbage before going after something helpful like a list of gifted and talented programs. :) Loraxofgifted (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Big Chill Festival

Hi there, can you tell me why the citation I posted and you deleted was from an unreliable source, and what makes it unreliable? Glitch1971 (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	For your continued work on Wikipedia and for reverting dubious edits. Theo10011 (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

John Wood (design theorist)

If you first remove 2/3rd of the content, any article will start to look as if notability is an issue. This isn't some random rapper we're talking about, nor even someone who's a member of the RSA, but someone who they've elected to be a Fellow. That's a damn sight more notability than you or I are ever likely to amount to!

Can you please give me any explanation as to why not revert your entire changes as vandalism? I'm supposed to AGF and as you've obviously edited step-by-step with some care, I have to assume that you've done this with with the best of intentions - but think about it: if an anon IP had trollied up, deleted two thirds and then tagged the remainder for notability, we'd jump on it like a shot as a vandalism edit. Even with the admitted COI issue in mind, and the likelihood that some pruning might make for a better article (as we either strive to make them better, or we get rid - we don't impose byte counts), why are your edits any different from that? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I thank you for you outburst. I responded to your comments about the article on its talk page. I believe most edits to Wikipedia are done by IPs. Providing they are within Wikipedia's guidelines, as these edits were, they are not a problem. You will note from perusing the article's history that the notability tag was present prior to my recent edits. I merely reinstated it as notability had never been established. I have sent off my cheque to become a fellow of the RSA (I included the extra £25 for the diploma I can hang on my wall) but I too remain entirely un-notable. Lame Name (talk) 09:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You still fail to appreciate the difference between cleanup and filleting. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The content "filleted" from the article was a list of non-notable jobs he has done - co-editor of a journal, member of a think-tank etc. and some lectures he had given. Non-notable unencyclopaedic stuff. All the other content was kept and just tidied into an article rather than a list of random attributes. If you can find some independent reliable sources discussing the significance of his co-editorship of a journal please reinstate it. Lame Name (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Rodney Orpheus

Vanity page is back. Can you help me with the clean up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetlehive (talk • contribs) 13:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

inre House!

I was successful in my searches, finding several full-length reviews, including Eye for Film and Variety. I was able to nicely expand and source the article. I believe the current version now meets WP:NF. Perhaps you might revisit your !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House! and offer a comment? Regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Help in Biased Editing

There is an editor by the name of Tgeorgescu that has added a Criticism section to the Intercultural Open Univerity Foundation article. If you remember you were very helpful and supportive to us in saving and developing this article. His references can be acceptable since they are in print from 2007 to 2008. The problem the editors for IOU have is the manner, especially the tone and lack of being netural that we object to. He selects the very worst of quotes and appears to add his own "twist" to create a very negative image for our foundation. I have done some editing to try to capture the neutral tone. I know you are very good at this and would like to ask for any help you coulld give us in keeping this article in the fair and balanced format that we initially establsihed. A 2008 Dutch newspaper article that he quotes gave us relationships that we never had and defintely do not have now. The religious link he made to Jesus I simply could not understand what this would do for the article. I am not sure in my mind if this reference even meets the Wikipedia validity test? I do not want to get into any editing war---all of us just want clarity and neutrality. Any help you could provide would be most appreciated.Stretch call (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Eo newsletter 50 1986.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Eo newsletter 50 1986.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 object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. B (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Firsthesfesad.jpg

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

If you are the copyright holder for 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-en@wikimedia.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-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} 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. B (talk) 18:07, 12 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) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Lame Name. 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, Lame Name. 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:EOTriangle.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:EOTriangle.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Education Otherwise for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Education Otherwise, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education Otherwise until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for greatly improving Education Otherwise

Thank you for improving it.

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) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)