User talk:Maester mensch

Welcome!

Hello, Maester mensch, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Mak emi 20:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. first I was going to leave you the welcome message because your talk page was blank, then I wasn't because you just moved from a different username, but then it looked like that user's talk page was blank too, so I welcome you, and if you don't need the above links, just ignore them. Have fun! Mak emi 20:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome. I used to contribute under another name, but decided to change it. I made a redirect on my original userpage (also without a talk page), to this new version. mensch 20:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simeon ten Holt

Question: in Dutch names beginning with "ten" or "van," should the name be alphabetized by the "ten" or "van" or by the actual last name? For example, should "Jakob van Domselaer" be alphabetized under "D" or "V"? For Beethoven, who wasn't Dutch, we alphabetize under "B," but I'm not sure for other composers. If you look in the category "Dutch composers" under Simeon ten Holt, you'll see that it's alphabetized under "T," but I think this may be incorrect. Or maybe there are different schemes of alphabetizing in the USA/English speaking regions and in the Netherlands. Thanks, Badagnani 14:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jakob van Domselaer should be alphabetized under the "D", it's the same as with Beethoven. I think that's because "ten", "de" or "van" aren't the most significant parts of a last name. If you only write the last name of a person then you have to capitalize both words, e.g. "Ten Holt" or "De Waal". This is the Dutch schema and I think in Belgium it's again a bit different, as they tend to write last names continuously, e.g. "Dewaal" and "Tenholt". So if a person is Belgian than this will probably the correct way to write his/her last name. The categorisation of Ten Holt is indeed incorrect, it should be alphabetized under the "H". Hope that helps! mensch 15:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

steven seagal

nice work on the Steven Seagal page -- the new references format really works well. nice work! --Ghetteaux 00:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) mensch • t 09:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on HyperCard?

I did not make the edit you just removed, but I think you need to refine your viewpoint of vandalism. The edit you removed simplified the description (de-jargoned it, if you will) and removed a grammatical error. It is clearly not vandalism, and should not have been called such. --Steven Fisher 15:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's cool, my brother. :) I'm glad you didn't take my message as insulting -- I think I came across as too harsh. I actually think the best edit in this case would be splitting the difference, so I'll probably do that. :) --Steven Fisher 15:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Fidel Castro reference method

I like your way of making the notes.

The Spanish language references bothered me also; I deleted many because they went to a screwy place or were broken. Also, often they refered to a useless piece of trivia the did not belong in the article, even if it were true, so I removed info and link. KarenAnn 17:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK!

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Patience Dabany, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your efforts! The article could use pictures though if you know of any... ++Lar: t/c 15:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I prefer to keep things threaded. moving back to your talk where the convo started.. ++Lar)

Cool! :)

(There are very few images on the web, and this one [1] on creonmusic.com seems to be the best one can find. I'm not sure whether to upload it to Wikipedia or not, due to possible licensing problems. mensch • t 15:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's an artist likeness, it may qualify under fair use. Another approach is to go to Amazon or wherever and snag an album cover she's done... that clearly qualifies for fair use. Just tag it appropriately. See, for example Maná for how I did it. (not saying it's 100% correct but it seems to work) ++Lar: t/c 16:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note 42 isn't working in Fidel Castro

I can't figure out why. The cite web looks right to me, but when you click on the number, there is an error message in the reference section. Would you take a look at it? KarenAnn 22:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Fidel Castro - link problen in 26 of July Movement section

In the second to last paragraph of the 26 of July Movement section, Frank Pais does not link to the Frank Pais page, even though there is one - I made the page. It shows up in Search. I must be missing something. (I have tried to add the necessary categories.) KarenAnn 15:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't find it either. Apparently someone named Teemu Ruskeepää went through Fidel Casto earlier today and removed completely quite a few secions, including 26 of July Movement. (I just looked at the article's history and quite a bit of the article was deleted in a short space of time today.) Now the Fidel Castro article is much shorter and less detailed. I guess I am more interested in the subject than most people are. KarenAnn 17:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia but to me it looks impossible to restore because it was done in so many steps. It would be very confusing to figure out how to restore it. Further, Teemu Ruskeepää is pretty clear in his editing notes that he made the changes because he did not like what was there. Apparently he felt my writing was biased, redundant, and badly organized. I would just be getting into an editing war with him and incur his hostility if I were to restore anything. KarenAnn 20:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Rather you not restore Fidel Castro

Teemu Ruskeepää wrote this on the Cuba discussion page today:

By coincidence I just meant to move "foreign relations" and "Castro and Soviet Union" from "Fidel Castro" in here. Teemu Ruskeepää 12:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Foreign relations, as well as some other sections, I researched and wrote myself. I know I am expressing the wrong attitude, but I didn't think Wikipedia was like this. I don't want to be associated with his attitudes nor the future of the Fidel Castro page. I wish you would leave Fidel Castro as Teemu wanted it. I would like to remove the sections I researched and wrote totally on my own and the rest he can have to do as he wants. I will find other articles to work on where the atmosphere is more cooperative. Thank you so much for your help and friendly attitude. It's very much appreciated and a bright light on this very bad day for me. KarenAnn 01:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Maester mensch, it looks to me like KarenAnn has done some really good work on the Castro page and it would be a shame if she felt she didn't want to contribute further. I've been doing a lot of work around all the Cuba pages lately and I'll try and sort it out with Teemu Ruskeepää so material is all in the correct place. His idea to move material to from "Fidel Castro" to "Cuba" is certainly not going to happen. Thanks. --Zleitzen 05:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maester mensch, you should be congratulated for your excellant work on the Fidel Castro page under difficult and often trying circumstances! Well done.--Zleitzen 18:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me where to go for help?

I have written two articles that have disappeared through some method of redirection. I can no longer even access them. How can I find them? Do you know who I can talk to about this, as I am getting quite discouraged. The article Talkpage people just ignore my wishes and the help desk people say talk to the article Talkpage. KarenAnn 16:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

About which articles are you talking? Maybe I'll be able to find them somewhere. I redirected the page you contributed a lot to, about Frank Pais to a renamed page (Frank País, with an accent on the "i"), but you should be able to find that one. There are some other places, other than the helpdesk, where you can ask for help or procudures you can start, I'll see if I can dig up the URLS. mensch • t 16:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked on two pages in the last month that have totally disappeared. The first time someone changed the name of the Desknote page to Desktop replacement computer, and completely replaced all my work without any prior discussion. This time my section in Desktop replacement computer was deleted, again without prior discussion. So I created a page called Desknotes which worked for about an hour as a valid link. Now it too comes up Desktop replacement computer. My Desknotes page is no longer accessible. I can't find it. KarenAnn 17:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

KarenAnn, to access the pages in question, click on their links. They will redirect you to Desktop replacement computer, but at the top of the page you will see (Redirected from Desknote). Click Desknote there to be taken to the old location for the page. You can then look in the History to see previous versions.

However, the pages were redirected for a reason. "Desknote" is synonymous with, and less popular than, "desktop replacement." The "Comparison to desknotes" section was removed for the same reason: there's nothing to compare. The comparisons section partly duplicated the definition of desktop replacement, and was partly incorrect. TomTheHand 18:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TomTheHand, click on what links? The only links I can think of are Desknote on various computer pages and they do not lead to any pages that have (Redirected from Desknote). So I can't find a way to click on any link and be taken to the old location for the page I created, if I am understanding your directions correctly. Besides, I thought Wikipedia had policies about how people are treated, regardless of your evaluation of what they have written. I am hoping mensch • can find the page I created for me, because it was the first one I have done from scratch with all the proper sections and code. I would just like to see it. KarenAnn 18:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entire content from Desknotes has been copied to User talk:KarenAnn/Desknotes, so you can just go directly there if you want instead of messing with the below procedure. I'm posting it so you'll see how to do this in the future.

Click on the following link: desknotes. It will redirect you to Desktop replacement computer. At the top you'll see the article title, then "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia," then directly underneath you'll see "(Redirected from Desknotes)." You can click that link to return to the Desknotes page. All you'll see is the link to Desktop replacement computer, but if you click on "History" at the top of your screen you'll see previous versions of the page. You can access the pages from there.

Wikipedia certainly does have policies about how people are treated, but nobody has mistreated you. What has happened with the desknotes articles was not personal and nobody wants to discourage you from editing. We have just honestly done what we feel makes the best encyclopedia article. I understand your attachment to your writing, but its removal was not an attack on you. TomTheHand 19:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some higher authority I can complain to?

Am I forbidden to write an article on Desknote? (Perhaps the fact that Desknote confuses people is an interesting issue.) Can the Desktop computer replacement guys decide I can't have access to a page I made hours before? This feels like a dictatorship. The Desktop replacement computer guys think I'm dumb, as they have patiently explained. There is obviously a hierarchy at work here. Is this place just a huge bureaucracy or is it possible to appeal to a higher authority about whether I can get my own page back and write on the subjects I want to. Wikipedia is getting to seem like it's not a very nice place. KarenAnn 19:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

I was able to find the page through one of the links you provided. I nominated it for speedy deletion. This ends the whole thing. KarenAnn 23:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy

This policy is not useful to me because I have never been notified of deletions prior to it being done. Policy is one thing. My experience here is another. KarenAnn 23:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Citations - reference notes

I have been looking around for templates that will perform the same service as the web citation template you gave me for other references like DVD's for example -- where there is a footnote number in the body of the text and reference is in the Referrence section. (I can't find my way around here well enough yet to find this for myself). Would you give me some links? The ones I've found put the reference in the body of the article. KarenAnn 13:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Place the <references/> tag where the footnotes need to appear.

O.K. Thanks. That's what I've been doing. Didn't know if it was legit or not. KarenAnn 14:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-How do you restore a page that's been vandalized?

That's just happened to a page I watch. Is it easy to do, as I see you do it all the time? Also, is it considered wrong (or whatever) to remove comments from my talk page (ones that go on and on to no purpose)? Sorry to keep asking you questions. Don't know who else to ask. KarenAnn 00:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, never mind. I learned how to revert a page. But I still wonder if it's O.K. to edit one's talk page, or is that not P.C.? KarenAnn 02:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Civil War

I don't even know if you are American or what. But (whatever) the American Civil War is very controversial (at least in some quarters) and yet the American Civil War people have come up with a NPOV article.

Why is anything Cuban so different? I sense you might be becoming exhausted. My own brother, when I asked him to translate some of those Spanish links, came up with party-line stuff. (I think he is left of Castro, but I don't know and don't want to know.) I hope you keep them all in line. One of the reasons I stopped: I questioned in my own mind whether I was neutral about Castro (I thought I was, but maybe not.) KarenAnn 02:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)][reply]

P.S. How is it that people get to write articles on their own? On some people's pages they list articles they have written. I would like to write one on Frank Pais in peace. Then if people want to join in, fine. But let me do my thing first. Maybe the only way is to disguise it as the Portuguese Colonial Revolution or something. Then change the name at the last minute. KarenAnn 02:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the only thing you could do is write your new articles in an external text editor and when your new article has reached a certain state of "completeness" you might want to consider to upload it and "open it up" for other people to contribute to. On Wikipedia it pretty hard to mask the fact that you're writing an article or new content. Masking an article about Frank Pais as "Portuguese Colonial Revolution" will most likely result in a renaming and merger of your article and the original Frank Pais article, I'm afraid.

That was a joke - the "Portuguese Colonial Revolution" comment. How would you do the footnoting (the most time-consuming part) in a text editor? Is there a way? I have EditPlus (among others) which could be configured to do that perhaps. KarenAnn 14:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That User talk:RasputinAXP (who has shut down his talk page and gone into hiding because someone is going to shoot him -- except that he can't resist answering hostile messages even if he is on a Wikibreak) had a good idea. He said

You could also write the article in your userspace by linking to it before it exists, like this: User:KarenAnn/Frank Pais. I did that for several articles I needed more time to put together.

That seems like a good idea. KarenAnn 23:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia tools

I went to that link you suggested and installed the Wikipedia extension for Firefox, my browser. But it doesn't have the one thing I would really like -- spell check. KarenAnn 00:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There surely must be some spell checker extensions available on the Mozilla website, as there are extensions for virtually anything. mensch • t 21:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You would think so, wouldn't you? There is one called "aspell" but apparently it hasn't been updated for a very long time and is incompatible with recent versions of Firefox. (I tried it.) So I just risk the spelling or use the EditPlus spell checker.

Tomorrow my three books on Cuba are going to be delivered (according to my tracking of my package online). Last night I read the Bockman article again. I think Bockman has got it right, even though he is a Marine Corp Major writing in 1984. He even outlines the role the media played (rather, Castro's clever use of the media). And how the U.S. was so screwed up in its foreign policy toward Cuba even then, that although Batista was a Miami business man and the U.S. supported his regime, the powers that be in Washington D.C. were so befuddled that they were "neutralized" (in Bockman's words) and did not help out Batista.

I can't understand why there is so much argument over whether Castro killed two students or not. I can't see how it makes one wit of difference. (See, I'm getting riled up because I allowed myself to look at that page yesterday.) KarenAnn 22:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commend you for hanging in there

On the Fidel Castro page. You must be very resolute. Very good and admirable. KarenAnn 23:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea -- peer review. I think we need some disinterested parties to breathe new live into us -- give us a new slant. KarenAnn 23:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, the peer review process page explains that this is only intended for good articles that are likely to become featured articles.

Maybe things just have to die down some from the current upheaval -- there are some well-motivated (reasonable) people like BruceHallman and Zleitzen who would respond to the challenge and want to make it a good article. KarenAnn 23:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading up on the featured article criteria, etc., and one piece of advice was that good citing resolves POV arguments. We have a head start there, since you introduced the method of citing we are now using. When there was all that argument over whether Castro was Prime Minister or not, I found that BBC reference, and that ended the whole controversy. Likewise, whether Castro was exhiled or voluntarily left Cuba for Mexico. So I think we can do it -- we just have to come up with sources methodically. KarenAnn 22:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I propose a request for peer review on the Castro talk page?

I say yes. It would give us something constructive to think about, a direction forward -- although perhaps people are burned out for the time being. That would be my only worry. KarenAnn 23:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to eavesdrop, but I've read about your plans for peer review and I'm not so sure whether that's wise. In the case of Castro (and Cuba) there's a lot of cranks out there and you may find that you become swamped by half-baked ideologues and/or plain ignoramuses.

What I recommend is that the page closely follows the format and style of featured articles such as Margaret Thatcher which was awarded featured status last year [2] (it may be worth looking at the featured version I've linked to rather than the present version) and Tony Blair (featured version here [3]). Both these politicians are as equally controversial as Castro yet the editors managed it.--Zleitzen 23:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

A request for comment relating to Teemu's activities on the Fidel Castro talk has been made here Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teemu Ruskeepää. Would you like to be the co-signer? --Zleitzen 10:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandelism Alert

Maybe you can deal with it. I tried to "Contack Wikipedia" but the barriers were successful. I didn't get through. Regarding listings for: "Dam," "Damm" and "MADD."

“Dam” is OK.

“Damm” has "MADD" information. Seems 68.147.69.190 is the vandal.

“MADD” has some data, but I think that the real data has been moved to “Damm.”

Patrick O'Redondo 23:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you stood up for Teemu not being a vandal

I think he is genuinely misled, not a vandal. His behavior has been outragous, over the line, but I can't help but feel for him some, if you read his front page (what he describes about his life.) KarenAnn 01:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid referencing using the m:Cite.php markup style

Do you have an opinion about this method of citing? If this method has been used on an article, but the person who implemented it is no longer around, would you recommend that someone like me try to figure it out? Or would you recommend that I try to switch the page to your method?

Right now the page has mostly the hybrid referencing User:CitationTool/Hybrid referencing but newer citations are in your style because that's all the rest of us know.

However there is a banner at the top of the page saying that a uniform method of citing would benefit the article. KarenAnn 16:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to convert duplicate references & point them to the same footnote.

How do you do that?

By the way, have you noticed that Teemu is back? It's starting to become really funny. I can't help but laugh. He is so resolute! KarenAnn 22:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

Given the horrendous problems of working on the Fidel Castro page and Teemu's continued activity, would you be interested on working on a sandbox version with KarenAnn and myself. Away from the main page. We could hone down individual sections, then replace each of them in a careful appropriate manner. --Zleitzen 13:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red carpet

I appreciate what you say, and am waiting to hear from people with such an objection to grey'ed red carpets. Regardless, my attempt to compromise is genuine and substantial, I hope most people can appreciate my good intent, as I understand that you do. I am not that quick using GIMP, so going at another revision of the image takes a significant amount of time I would like to avoid spending if I can. BruceHallman 20:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer, and you make good points. Though, take a look at the top photo in the article, to my eye at least, it appears to have been retouched 'grey' to hide the background. BruceHallman 21:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jedi Exile gender

You've been making several edits stating that the Jedi Exile is male. This is not true; according to canon, the Exile is female. Please stop making erroneous edits. Thanks! EVula 18:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki double standard

Hi, I don't usually write here, but I was reading some of the discussion on why lostpedia was deleted and wookipedia was kept. Can you clarify? That's one of the largest online encyclopedias, I thought. I've never heard of wookipedia. What is it? --216.164.33.39 19:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, Wookieepedia is the Star Wars wiki. As such, it is a very notable website; quite a bit moreso than one for Lost. EVula 20:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why the Lostpedia article was deleted. But I do know why an Deletion poll for the Wookieepedia article would result in a speedy keep, because it's the largest wiki project (37,723 articles, whereas Lostpedia only has 1,355) concerning Star Wars and often used as a reference for many articles. Again I do not no the reasons for the deletion of Lostpedia, but I do know Wookieepedia is not some small fan website and notable enough to feature on Wikipedia, as is the article about Neal Stephenson which you nominated. mensch • t 20:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

link to 3D

Hello, when you want to link to the article about something 3D, please do not link to 3D, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as 3D computer graphics by writing out [[3D computer graphics|3D]] Regards, -- Jeff3000 03:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dawkins

Hi Maester mensch. "Still isn't good enough" - can you be more specific about what you don't like and how to improve the Supporters/Critics section please? NBeale 23:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have now done 4 reverts on Dawkins, kindly un-revert immediately or I will report you. You are right that this is ridiculous - stop your attempts to censor NBeale 12:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NBeale, I suggest you don't report anyone. Your acts of puppetry (meat or sock, I don't know at the moment) are apparent: WildOscar, Laura H S, Rclb. Stop it. *Sparkhead 12:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to self revert on the Dawkins article, even though I have reverted the article four times now. What's happening now, the constant reverts by highly suspicious users, could be considered vandalism. The edits have no consensus whatsoever and have become suspicious at best. mensch • t 12:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mensch. I think you might have misspoken at Talk:Richard Dawkins, where you said, "Also, one quote, taken out of an interview can be the evidence of somebody's ideology". I figure from the rest of your context that this was a typo but I'm not comfortable fixing someone else's words, just in case. Peace! — Coelacan | talk 17:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR report

Just in case you're not aware, since the troll NBeale didn't have the curtisey to inform you, he's reported you up for 3RR violation [4]. Regards --KaptKos 13:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a note of support of MM in that notice violation. I suggest other interested editors do the same. *Sparkhead 13:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double Fine

'Yello. Check the DoubleFine Page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheeliedude (talk • contribs)

Che Guevara may not recover from this high-level trashing

HI mensch! Nice to see your name again weighing in for User:Zleitzen. I wish I had the nerve to do so my self, but trouble will follow me if I do. I don't want all that again under my new (offically changed) identity. I have missed you and have always admired what you say.

Remember the good old days on Fidel Castro before that article got bombed by Teemu, similar in effect to what Jimbo has done now. The article never recovered. (I have since changed my name so you may not recognize me -- you and Zleitzen are my beautifl past. Now I stay away from everyone and don't form Wiki relations or comment on anything of substance; it is too dangerous.) Zleitzen has done wonderful work and it is a shame that he has to go through this. (He and I "semiretired" at the same time in May). Sincerely, Mattisse 16:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Cindrallig.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cindrallig.jpg. 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Spacesicon software.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Spacesicon software.png. 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Durtro

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

Only finding passing mentions related to artists Tibet has worked with, and not necessarily in reliable sources.

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. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]