User talk:Markeer

Please do not split up discussions. If you leave a message here, I will answer here as well. Replying on your talk-page would make following the discussion annoying to most readers, so I will refrain from doing so. The reverse, of course, also applies: If I left a message over at your place, that's where I would prefer you to reply. Thank you!

This is the talk page for User:Markeer. I've been an active wikipedian since about 2006 and always happy to hear feedback regarding articles I touch on.

Archives

/Archive 1

Opinion Requested

Hi, I'd like to hear you opinion on the following debate. (Merging Alternate Versions of Characters)

Species integration nominated for deletion

As someone who has commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most ancient common ancestor, you are invited to comment on another article by the same author which I just nominated for deletion. The same author coined a new article Species integration which similar theme with two completely irrelevant references, after the 'most ancient common ancestor' article was deleted. I removed these two irrelevant references, and commented on these on the Talk:Species integration page.

The new nomination/discussion page is at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Species integration.

Thanks. Fred Hsu 01:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Research Request

Your request has been received and I'm working on it. My university has recently changed the way my resources work, and so I'm having to refamiliarize myself with how it works. It may take me a bit to get some useful results, but they are forthcoming. Please find them here. /Blaxthos 13:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Sullivan

In what way is the veronica mars comment OR, and in what way is moviefreak.com not considered reliable? Please look at WP:OR and http://www.moviefreak.com/contact_a.htm. - Peregrine Fisher 02:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer the two of those separately:

1) The comment is intrinsically OR simply because "similar" is a relative term. Some people can find two things similar where others would not. It's creating a relationship where no objective relationship exists. If one could find an interview with actress Kristin Bell or show creator Rob Thomas saying "the character of Veronica Mars was based on Chloe Sullivan" then a relationship could be stated. The opinion of one reviewer in one place is not "truth", it's an opinion. Also it's quite a leap to go from the glib comment on moviefreak of "Speaking of Smallville, this show could be passed as a spin-off, since the characteristics of Veronica Mars are quite similar to Chloe Sullivan." to the hard-and-fast declaration that "Veronica Mars is similar to Chloe" as if it were fact.

2) Beyond that, the problem with moviefreak.com as a reliable source is that it's not a peer-reviewed source that I know of, nor is it a notable source. You may note that Moviefreak.com does not itself have a wikipedia article, although other review sites such as Metacritic do. There's an argument that a movie or TV review anywhere is a "source" but only in a matter regarding critical response, not as evidence regarding the nature of a show. Critics are responsive, not involved with the creative process. Therefore they cannot be used as evidence of what a show IS, only what they think of it.

Shorter form: One guy on a small website made a little joke because he found the two characters similar. That's not even close to being an argument for the encyclopedia entry on a subject to directly state that the two characters ARE similar, even if it were possible to define exactly what "similar" means.

original research is when wikipedia editors make comparisons, not outside sources. It's a rule about internal OR, not external OR. Moviefreak has editorial oversight (according to the link I provided), which means it's not a personal web site, and therefore meets reliable sources. - Peregrine Fisher 15:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:OMEG002coverSMALL.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:OMEG002coverSMALL.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 19:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the grammar in the quotation is incorrect, but as you said, it is a quotation, so I approve of your reversions. "Laying" is transitive, and the sentence does not call for a transitive verb. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing RPG notability/AfD situation

Hi, Markeer. Was wondering if you wouldn't mind reading my take on this situation around here of late, with all the AfD stuff going on in the RPG sector. My user page article is here. Thanks in advance. Compsword01 (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:NickFuryScorpioTPB.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NickFuryScorpioTPB.jpg. 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) 23:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Thekingdomtpb.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Thekingdomtpb.jpg. 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) 02:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Avengersv3-045pic2.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Avengersv3-045pic2.gif. 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) 19:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:My_album_my_band.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:My_album_my_band.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the positive support for the page George Karakunnel.Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 12:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job

Hey man, I was going through some old pages of mine and ran across the Coalition for the Homeless article. Good job, especially with so few sources available. :-) If I had the case names and years back when I had lexis-nexus access, I coulda gotten you a good bit more. At any rate, just wanted to tell you bravo. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:JulianSark.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:JulianSark.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Leap

Regarding the deletion you made on this article ("common mistakes" section) on the grounds that it was speculative, I have to disagree for the most part. 90% of the section you deleted has direct references to episodes in the show, so it is "cited" in a way. If you look at other sections ("Laws of leaping", "Sam's Memory", etc), the style and referencing is exactly the same. In my view, a full deletion is not warranted, perhaps a deletion only of the two or three sentences that point towards spectulation? Mrkeked (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section is original research because it takes event and fact and attempts to draw conclusions. Wikipedia does not draw conclusions, it does not speculate on possible meanings or justifications, it presents information without interest or judgement. A section like this can only be possible on wikipedia if a published reliable and verifiable secondary source could be found which discussed the topic at length, remembering that personal websites and blogs are not secondary sources. Even if one could find an actor, writer or director of the show that has discussed storyline errors, that would be a primary source, and may or may not be of interest in an encyclopedia article. The episodes themselves are not sources for speculation about what the episodes may or may not mean, they are only sources of base data (i.e. what happened to who at what time, not "why"). As for the other sections, the argument other stuff exists is irrelevant, except to point out that there may be problems in those sections as well. -Markeer 01:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it acceptable, then, to point out the inconsistencies present in the episodes without drawing any conclusions?(ie. "In "How The Tess Was Won," the host wears glasses, but Sam does not. In other episodes like "Blind Faith," Sam wears glasses.). Although I do understand the advantages of editorial review, should we delete (relevant) content in order to preserve encyclopedic style? Will a person interested in the subject be better informed with the article that better follows the guidelines or the one that is more complete? The entry in discussion is, of course, very trivial. I just ask these questions because I worry that articles in wikipedia suffer from overzealous "guideline" editing.Mrkeked (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If mentioning those inconsistencies is important for a thorough overview of the subject, they can be mentioned, but drawing any conclusion from them is original research, almost by definition. In this case, I would probably question what value any section of "common mistakes" or plot inconsistances has to a brief encyclopedia article on the subject. Wikipedia doesn't attempt to be the ultimate source for information, it is a tertiary source, and attempts brevity when possible. No need for overzealous or underzealous editing, just a straightforward attempt to present a subject and follow wikipedia's guidelines.

A good example of a fairly tight article on a similar subject would be the current (as of March 3rd) version of Star Trek. An extremely vast subject, so it breaks it down to what's important: a one paragraph overview of each significant series, a chart to the movies, and then some discussion about cultural impact and fandom. There is indeed a section on continuity problems, and it's glaring in it's difference in tone from the rest of the article (hence currently having a clarificaion tag). A trivia based approach to that subject is obviously inappropriate, as would be a minutia-based plot breakdown or criticisms of individual stories. None of those things are required of a tertiary source, they can be addressed by authors, scholars and journalists who wish to publish critical analysis and/or "fun" aspects of a subject. -Markeer 04:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophical theory

Hello, I noticed your comments at this page and I'm wondering if you can give the article another look-over since it has changed quite a bit since the time you weighed in on it. Thanks, Them From Space 20:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice improvement to the article, was very glad to see it, and more than happy to weigh in on the improvements. Good job. -Markeer 23:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Jennysparksthesecrethistoryoftheauthority3.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Jennysparksthesecrethistoryoftheauthority3.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use 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 you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo Banner and Map on Bottom.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:10th Street View.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:10th Street View.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) 05:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Markeer, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Markeer/National Museum of the American People.

See a log of files removed today here.
Shut off the bot here.
Report errors here.
If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Thingpp.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Thingpp.jpg. 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) 23:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Project Pegasus for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Project Pegasus 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/Project Pegasus 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. TTN (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC) TTN (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent AFD discussions

The notifications feature on Wikipedia notified me of your reference to me on the discussion for Project Pegasus' nomination for deletion. I am just letting you know that I have already started a section for it under List of government agencies in Marvel Comics if the decision is to merge like they did when they transferred Department H to that page. Rtkat3 (talk) 9:53, November 3 2013 (UTC)

I would just like to ask how your "Exterminate" post on my article "Dark Doctor" shows that it should be deleted. (Mcs2050wiki (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Well, for the reasons I gave, albeit less facetiously. Wikipedia's guidelines require non-trivial coverage of the subject in multiple secondary sources. The cited articles do, indeed, show that an actor is playing a role, but of an uncertain nature and never called "Dark Doctor". A line on the article for Doctor Who and Doctor (Doctor Who) are enough to assert that John Hurt played The Doctor for one scene recently and is expected to again, so what is the reason for this additional article that had no additional information?

Actually, I suppose the title of the article is probably where my main issue is, and why I took the time to weigh in on the debate. There's no evidence that this term "Dark Doctor" is any official or even semi-official name for the character, so it immediately smacks of being a fan's enthusiasm rather than a verifiable and encyclopedic expression of a fact.

At any rate, my opinion wasn't meant personally and I hope you don't take it that way. I would imagine after the 50th Anniversary episode there will be some kind of article about the character created, and probably with links to a great many reviews in secondary sources.-Markeer 20:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Blackout (comics) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

to the labs, killing Croit and his new assistant by letting them “merge with the color spectrum” (actually, by shunting them to the Darkforce dimension}. Following another skirmish with Nova, Blackout himself vanished into this dimension when he fell

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 10 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Arcade (Marvel Comics) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Markeer. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Markeer. 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)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lauren Jauregui

Template:Lauren Jauregui has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some things have changed but if you want you can check yourself to see how the template looks like now.Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Markeer. 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)[reply]

Request for your assistance in keeping an important article alive

Greetings,

I noticed that you voted "KEEP" on a recent music-related deletion dispute. I would greatly appreciate it if you could consider voting KEEP in the following case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player

After several people voted "DELETE", I discovered that Classical_Archives (the largest classical music site in the world), has endorsed the product that this article describes, for the past two years. The following website contains the statement "MidiPro.org is the ONLY Online Midi Editor": https://www.classicalarchives.com/midi.html

It would be a huge loss to the music community if this article was deleted, since it describes the only Online Midi Editor and Player in existence.

Thank you very much for your consideration. MySonLikesTrump (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Hello, I'm Denniss. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Sophia Lillis, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Denniss (talk) 05:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:NickFuryScorpioTPB.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NickFuryScorpioTPB.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) 18:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]