User talk:Piccadilly/Archives

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia , I hope you will like it here and decide to stay.

You may want to take a look at the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages.

Here are some links I've found useful:

Also: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your username and the time after your comments. Signing with three tildes ~~~ will just sign your username.

I hope to see you around Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page!

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ]

17:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Kenwood elevations

Thanks for those. Any chance you could upload the image to Wikimedia Commons - there is an image gallery there Commons:Kenwood House that it could go in. Justinc 12:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will do soon. Piccadilly 12:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Photograph of William Burges.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Photograph of William Burges.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 12:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meißen

Hi, you just moved Meißen to Meissen. Before you do something like that, you should submit it at Wikipedia:Requested moves. There has been a lot of discussion about replacing characters in proper names, that are part of the extended Latin alphabet, like ß, ð and þ. There is no consensus about that, see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#Disputed_issues. I suppose that means you shouldn't move this page unilaterally. I'll move it back. Markussep 13:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People who want article names in German can use the German Wikipedia. Piccadilly 23:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsense! Have you read anything I wrote above? 1. Discuss moves like this before you do them. 2. Meißen nor Meissen is English, it's a town in Germany, and you can't decide on your own what the common English name is. Markussep 08:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What garbage! This is the English Wikipedia and it should be written in English. Non native speakers who try to use Wikipedia to bend the English language should be banned from Wikipedia. You have no more right to tell us how to write English than we have to tell you how to write Dutch. The difference is that there are a lot of non-native speakers trying to manipulate the English wikipedia, but probably very few non-native Dutch speakers on the Dutch one. Piccadilly 15:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like it, take it to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) orWikipedia:Requests for comment. Markussep 06:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where the debate will shamelessly be manipulated by non-native speakers who should not be permitted to contribute! Piccadilly 16:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for deletion

Yesterday I accidentally erased a whole bunch of content via this edit. Today I restored the content I erased. Since you were the person affected by this, please make sure that your votes are correct. My apologies for all the trouble.Balcer 13:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actors who portrayed... catagories

Why can't you understand that I created those Actors/Actresses who portrayed... subcatagories because the Batman actors and Superman actors catagories were getting severely large. So breaking them down became much more conveinent for the user. Besides, there's only an elite number of actors who have portrayed a particular iconic comic book character like Batman and Superman (so they should get extra focus). TMC1982 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand why you are doing it but I still don't think it is a good idea. I would like to see the categories system keep in check, with just a handful of categories on each article. I don't think that playing a particular character is necessarily or usually a defining characteristic of an actor's career. Piccadilly 12:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Caryll; Howard Talbot

You moved him into "Belgian musical theatre composers", and he is the only item in that category. Are you sure that's the right way to do it? Also, you moved Howard Talbot to English musical theatre composers, but he is American born.... -- Ssilvers 20:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone should be in a nationality-by-occupation category and Howard Talbot was English. Place of birth does not determine nationality and infant residency is irrelevant to the categorisation of adult careers. Piccadilly 20:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but if that's right, then shouldn't Caryll be in English musical theatre composers and American musical theatre composers, as about half of his musicals were composed while he lived in London, and half in New York? -- Ssilvers 20:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish. Piccadilly 20:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summary

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Dep. Garcia ^{(Talk to Me)} 20:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a patronising standard message to give to an experienced editor, and I really think you should think twice before using it again as it may prove counterproductive. Piccadilly 20:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my sincere apologies, i can promise you it wont happen again - i have replaced it with a more suitable one. Thanks for alerting me. If you have any more queries or are still angry with me please tell me on my talk page.

Dep. Garcia ^{(Talk to Me)} 20:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robeson/Stalin

Thanks, I have heard of that Stalin fella, but my question was about a source for the quote where Robeson said he admired him. Blueshoc12 16:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 16#Category:Pool and Snooker computer games

Please review the above CfR again; I believe you've misinterpreted the rationale for it and not understood that it is simply a temporary change. This video game category is the only cuesports-related category at this point that is not part of the consistent naming scheme. Note I say "consistent" not "ideal"; I recognize that "billiards" is hardly synonymous with "cue sports" to anyone but some Americans; changing the name of the general cue sports article (and all categories relating to it, including the one under discussion) from Billiards to either Cuesports or Cue sports will be the next step. That step will be easier to perform, in a multi-category mass CfR, if all of the category names are consistent. That's the ONLY purpose of this CfR; it has nothing to do with a preference for the term "billiards" as a generic name for cuesports. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The larger debate is now active at Talk:Billiards#Move of this article to "Cue sport", FYI. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guitarist categories

Hey there, I wonder if you mind if I combine Category:English heavy metal guitarists and Category:Scottish heavy metal guitarists into Category:British heavy metal guitarists? It seems to be broken down more than necessary, considering how few guitarists are in those categories. --Aguerriero (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I would mind. "English" and "Scottish" categories are legitimate and there are hundreds of each. These articles should be reachable from the relevant English and Scottish categories. Piccadilly 17:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will leave them. I am in the process of going through Category:Guitarist stubs, and many of those articles are not in any category. Hopefully I'll be able to file some more entries into those! --Aguerriero (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good luck. Piccadilly 17:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Leaders of Scientology"

Not sure that Gabriel Williams belongs in the "Leaders of Scientology" category.... being a 'chief supervisor' of their outpost in Mountain View, CA is hardly a leader of Scientology, more like middle management at best. Similarly, we wouldn't list a McDonalds manager as being a "Leader of McDonald's". wikipediatrix 18:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James I

I was taken aback by your "there is nothing in the article about pederasty. Look up the word if you don't know what it means. Categories are black and white and can only be justified by certainty" at the James I of England‎ article.

Categories are to guide readers to article with content relevant to the topic they are researching. It is "certain" that there is material relevant to pederasty in James I's life, since he had a relationship with Esmé Stewart, and even if you wish to dispute that, there is another, indisputable one with the seventeen year old Robert Carr. Regards, Haiduc 05:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof of sexual activity in either case. The category system deals in black and white and you are attempting to pass of speculation as fact. Piccadilly 19:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British royal titles templates

So you've added the categories in manually for, what, 'ordering'? The reason there is a capacity to include a category in a template is because they go together - if someone was Duke of Albany, they belong in the category, and should have the template - thus the two are inextricably linked. What if we're told by the PtB that the category ought to be called "People who have in the past been a Duke of Albany" - someone would have to go through and manually edit the categories - whereas, with template embedding, it would only need to be altered once... – D B D 08:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes for ordering. The way you did it damaged the presentation of every related article. Your point about having to edit each article is meaningless as category names can only be changed via Wikipedia:Categories for discussion and all adjustments agreed there are implemented by bot. No one will have to manuaully edit a single article. Please think twice about using advanced categorisation tools when you don't understand the basics, as you are likely to do more harm than good. Piccadilly 19:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You helped choose Yeast as this week's WP:AID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Yeast was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

AzaBot 03:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

You helped choose Jupiter as this week's WP:AID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Jupiter was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

AzaBot 14:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

You helped choose Peloponnesian War as this week's WP:ACID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Peloponnesian War was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

AzaBot 12:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Using English

Hello - I'm contacting you because of your involvement with using English instead of foreign terms in articles. A few are trying to "Anglicise" French terms in Wiki articles according to current guidelines but there is some resistance (eg/: "Région => Region"; "Département => Departement"). Your input would be appreciated here. Thankyou. --Bob 16:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Guitar Categories

Hello! Thanks for the great job on the categorization of classical guitarists by nationality.

However: The category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Classical_guitarists should actually be called Category:Classical_guitarists_by_nationality

Also: The category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Classical_guitarists should contain what it contained previously, namely: links to the entries with classical guitarists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Classical_guitarists

Wikipediating towards socks

I just wanted to say hello. If ever you get bored maybe we can and add so No comments as per WP:SOCK, together to certain articles. --SockingIt 07:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animal rights activists

Hi, your addition of the population tag on the category mentioned along with the summary There was a majority for using this category and the opposition is just plain ridiculous. is wrong. There was no majority either way. There was no consensus. Please do not unilaterally decide that 'the opposition is just plain ridiculous' as that is offensive to all those editors who put forward their arguments.

You haven't addressed any of the concerns of the many editors who voiced the.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting categories

Hi, I see that you've reordered the categories on a bunch of articles (some of which I've contributed to), so I am curious to find out what the sorting criteria are. Actually, I've been wondering about that for a while now (well, not that long -- I've been editing at wikipedia for only about two months), and I still haven't figured out what the "canonical" sorting should be. I tried alphabetical (with numbers coming before letters), but I agree, that may not always be the best. I tried to figure out your sorting algorithm (perhaps I can follow it in the future), but it wasn't quite clear to me. Eg, for mathematicians, I see that you usually start with, say "American Mathematician", but not always (sometimes with, say, "20th century mathematician"). Maybe you go by relevance/importance of some sort?

While at it, one more question: if, say, a mathematician is from, say, England, but has been working for a while in, say, the US, should one use, in addition to "English mathematician" (or, "British mathematician"), "American mathematician"? I've seen it done both ways, and I personally prefer the latter (with both country of origin, and country of residence/work, if that's been for a while), so I wonder whether there is an official (or even unofficial) policy on that, or is it done on a case-by-case basis. Thanks. Turgidson 23:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just try to think of what will be most useful to readers, because categories are a navigation tool. It's an art not a science and there is no one perfect order, but alpabetical order isn't much help for navigation as it tends to put relatively trivial categories ahead of the ones based on key groupings. People can be categorised under more than one country, but it usual practice to do that only when they have settled permanently in a different country and (generally) taken citizenship. In many cases there are other categories that can be used to tie people to a country in which they worked temporarily, eg faculty categories for academics or team categories for sportspeople. Piccadilly 13:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanations -- I guess then one needs to play it by ear, and make a value judgment what's more important (not always very clear). Some guidelines (with a few well-chosen examples) may be useful -- is there a page for that? Finally, as for categories in more than one country, please take a look if you wish at the article on Peter Hilton. I've had a friendly discussion with another editor about what categories to use there. Hilton (born in London) has been working as an academic in the US since 1962, anbd indeed the vast majority of his (mathematical) research has been done in the US, so I think this would qualify him as an American mathematician. Any opinion on that? Thanks. Turgidson 15:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say he should not be classified as an American mathematician unless he has taken American citizenship. He is already in two faculty categories. Piccadilly 18:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles with unsourced statements

I am preparing a new CfD (Category for deletion nomination) for the category known as "Articles with unsourced statements" (i.e., articles with one or more fact templates). Given the increasing demand for more sourcing, this cat could quite foreseeably ultimately grow to encompass the vast majority of articles on the wiki. In my estimation that's far too broad to be an effective category. But perhaps more importantly, this cat was reinstated virtually unilaterally by an admin after a successful CfD, after which another CfD was short-circuited with a very arbitrary "speedy keep" only two days after it was opened. I probably will file it this week, after I further research the background of the issues that attend to this situation. Some of the attending issues can be found in a recent exchange at Category Talk:Articles with unsourced statements#This_category_should_not_even_be_here.2C_AFAICS.

Among the various issues involved are: 1) overly inclusive categories; 2) categories that constantly change in response to minor issues in individual articles (such as when fact templates are added and removed throughout the wiki); 3) the impossiblility of ever clearing such a massive list as new fact templates are placed and removed throughout the wiki; 4) the arbitrary nature of citation-needed templates throughout the wiki--there are many facts in need of citing, and such a category only accounts for those that have been actually noted as a template; 5) administrative truncating or short-circuiting of community process as happened with "Category:Articles with unsourced statements", and what properly is the range of admin discretion in closing AfDs, CfDs and DRVs prior to seven days under the "speedy" criteria; 6) how to properly deal with mistaken or abusive admin procedure after the fact when it is later discovered after having gone "under the radar"; 7) the related widespread use of User:SmackBot, which under an initial broad grant to use the bot for "various categories" has now managed to tag fact many tens of thousands of fact templates throughout the wiki as "February 2007", thereby letting us all know nothing more than that the bot was active in February 2007.

Thought you might like to know about it. Thanks, ... Kenosis 00:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category is now up for deletion review at the following location: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_20 . ... Kenosis 12:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cfd

As a commentor on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_5#Category:Keralite_americans I thought you may be interested in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_9#Category:Tamil_Americans.Baka man 02:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Category:Women Writers

You recently commented on this CFD on Women Writers. The debate is now up on deletion review. Please comment. >Radiant< 10:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You showcase yourself to be ignorant

in terms of musical history by your insistence that the Peel Sessions artist classification is not important. It is important, and the category needed to stay, and I am very angry that you took it upon yourself to foist your lack of knowledge about the topic at hand via your vote to delete the category. The category was necessary and valid and needed to stay on Wikipedia for the site to be full in scope. Peel Sessions artists were by and large artists who were marked by a sense of innovation and musical experimentation, and the fact that you discounted that in favor of your chosen ignorance of the subject matter means that your vote, as well as the vote of the other individuals who chose to vote for deletion, was and is tainted. (Krushsister 04:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Image:Image:A South View of Somerset House, From Waterloo Bridge by Thomas Hosmer Shepherd, published 1817.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:A South View of Somerset House, From Waterloo Bridge by Thomas Hosmer Shepherd, published 1817.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

N.B. Images require source information irrespective of copyright status. Madmedea 22:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's out of copyright, and if you delete it I am not going to respond by spending time jumping through legalistic hoops, on the contrary, I will stop wasting my time sourcing historical images for an ungrateful organization like Wikipedia. Piccadilly 19:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Firstly, I am not going to delete anything, all I did was tag an image that I found that did not have any source information, an admin would decide whether the image should be deleted. ALL Wikipedia images need source information, it is Wikipedia policy - WP:IUP. Secondly, the image is currently an orphan and Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files or a file storage area, if an image isn't being used in an article then it needs to be moved to the Wikimedia Commons which is a media repository. The Commons has the same rules as Wikipedia - images need copyright and source information, so before the image can be moved to the commons it needs both. Yes, the automatically generated message above is not the friendliest in the world I admit, but there is no need to be uncivil.Madmedea 19:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no benefit in enforcing policy in an inflexible, pedantic, counter productive way when it is clear that there is no practical issue. I notice that your excessive zeal has generated quite a lot of disapproval. Piccadilly 23:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal Home magazine

I've readded the prod to this article - the concerns have not been addressed. Just because it's a "well known magazine", it still needs to have its notability asserted with verifiable and reliable sources. Thanks for your understanding in this matter. The Rambling Man 06:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not permitted to restore prod to an article once it has been deleted. Your misconduct has led to an illegitimate deletion. The admin responsible should be stripped of his or her powers for this abuse. Piccadilly 17:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added the prod before the article was deleted. By all means commence means of "stripping" me of my "powers" for the "abuse". You cannot just remove a prod without justifying it... The Rambling Man 17:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can remove a prod, and it is against policy to restore it or delete the article when the prod has been contested. This is the most clear cut possible matter of policy. I know what you did, what some policy-ignorant admin did, and it is the admin who doesn't know the rules who should be stripped of his or her powers. Piccadilly 17:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel this way. I am open to recall so if you feel that way, please feel free to "remove" me of my "powers". If you feel so strongly, I'll gladly restore the article and put it up for WP:AFD instead. You provided zero justification for the existence of the article other than "one of the best known magazines in the UK" - where was your verifiable reliable sources to assert notability? Next time you remove a prod without doing anything about the concerns of the editor who added the prod I'll be sure to take it to WP:AFD. Apologies for being "policy-ignorant" once again, we're all human you know. The Rambling Man 18:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goans in Sports

DO NOT put reasons for a prod that were not stated. My prod had nothing to do with the fact that it was not a US centered article and everything to do with the fact that there were less than a handful of Goans listed. To me, that is not wiki worthy of an independent article but should have, at a minimum, been incorporated into a larger article. 172.168.45.242 13:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT shout at other users behind a shield of anonymity. Piccadilly 17:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT

No, I wasn't making a point, I was asking somebody to provide verifiable evidence of the notability of the magazine rather than just a lazy prod removal with no discernible improvement of the article. You haven't done that. Pity really because I'm sure you could, but you haven't. If you really want me to take this to WP:AFD just to force other more diligent editors to try to save it then fine, but just removing the prod without addressing the concern is slack. The Rambling Man 22:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about the magazine, but despite my complete lack of interest in its subject matter I know it is prominent. I have no duty to write any article, but I have helped wikipedia by saving an article about a topic that has been neglected due to systemic bias, ie we don't cover the interests of middle aged women well. As you now acknowledge that the article would survive nomination, any nomination you make will clearly be disruption to make a point. This is all so unnecessary. Piccadilly 22:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. It's a great article, with no secondary sources, no assertion of notability, and I'm sure your complete lack of interest is well-intentioned. I did not acknowledge any such assertion, please do not paraphrase. I said your lackadaisical approach will force other editors into trying to save it. I'm not making any point. You know the policies. Have a good evening. The Rambling Man 22:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempts to make me feel guilty are absurd. If we don't want other people to be put to the (entirely voluntary) trouble of writing articles, what are we doing involved with Wikipedia at all? Piccadilly 22:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have no interest in making you feel guilty. I'm just telling it how it is. Case closed. The Rambling Man 06:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly looked like you did. Anyway, you seem to have seen sense about the article. There was no need to make it such an ordeal. Piccadilly 14:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Banker Top 1000 World Banks

Hello and thanks for your comments concerning the deletion of The Banker Top 1000 World Banks, which I read with great interest. I thought I would reply and attempt to address some of the issues which you have raised.

I placed the article in the AFD pile because it had been created for the sole purpose of promoting this month's edition of the magazine. It had been laid out and written in the style of an advertisement, and even contained an oversised logo-box inviting readers to 'click here' for further information. To my mind this was a violation of WP:Spam, although I wouldn't like to comment on whether the publsher - or perhaps an over enthusiastic reader - was responsible for submitting the material.

Also, the magazine already has an article on Wikipedia, which you can find at The Banker. I feel that a brief mention of the fact that the magazine publishes a table of the world's 1000 top banks could have been made there, and incidentally, reading through The Banker, I have noticed one or two sentences which appear to be POV, so might have a go at cleaning these up.

I hope this goes some way in explaining my decision. If you have any more comments, please feel free to leave another message on my talk page.

Cheers Paul20070 00:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:An Experiment on a Bird in an Air Pump by Joseph Wright of Derby, 1768.jpg

Thank you for uploading images/media such as Image:An Experiment on a Bird in an Air Pump by Joseph Wright of Derby, 1768.jpg to Wikipedia! There is however another Wikimedia foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please consider creating an account and uploading media there instead. That way, all the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Thanks again, and please continue uploading! Richard001 00:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Old Erehwonerians

Hi, Piccadilly. May I trouble you, would you please visit this discussion on the Categories for Discussion page? regards, Xn4 03:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Chatsworth Cookery Book - large.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chatsworth Cookery Book - large.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) 19:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Yugoslav princes

Category:Yugoslav princes, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Yugoslav princesses

Category:Yugoslav princesses, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

You Rock, Piccadilly

I've never given out one of these before, ever, but I saw some of your work, and I couldn't resist:

		The Original Barnstar
		Because you absolutely, positively, rock. Keep doing it like you're doing it.74.234.39.218 (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

74.234.39.218 (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that this might look like sarcasm. It is not. I ran across two particular strands of edits that absolutely made me want to give you this. My admiration is sincere. But I will also understand it if you choose to not keep this displayed. It's up to you, my friend. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli revolutionaries

Hi,

I nominated Category:Israeli revolutionaries, which you created, for deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 11#Category:Israeli revolutionaries.

Your input is welcome. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:The Exhibition Room at Somerset House by Thomas Rowlandson and Augustus Pugin. 1800..jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:The Exhibition Room at Somerset House by Thomas Rowlandson and Augustus Pugin. 1800..jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:The Exhibition Room at Somerset House by Thomas Rowlandson and Augustus Pugin. 1800..jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Gary King (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Fictional ecologists

No content in Category:Egyptian designers

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Egyptian designers, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Egyptian designers has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Egyptian designers, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Klein

Klein a "Baltic-German"? He and his family were Jews - and Riga was an urban center for Jews at that time. -- kosboot (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Stephen Moorer

An article that you have been involved in editing, Stephen Moorer, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Moorer. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Amadscientist (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

English papers

Please see Category_talk:English-language_newspapers WhisperToMe (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Abdul Majid Zabuli for deletion

The article Abdul Majid Zabuli is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Majid Zabuli 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. David in DC (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Villa Albani by Giuseppe Vasi.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Villa Albani by Giuseppe Vasi.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. 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 or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Category:Actresses

I have asked for a deletion review of Category:Actresses. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Swedish vegans

Category:Swedish vegans, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deleted-category listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Deleted-category. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Deleted-category redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British revolutionaries has been nominated for discussion

Category:British revolutionaries, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Nevé –selbert 17:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Category:English revolutionaries has been nominated for discussion

Category:English revolutionaries, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cravin Chillies 17:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Evians-les-Bains

A tag has been placed on Evians-les-Bains requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thibaut120094 (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]