User talk:Randomfrenchie

This user is busy in real life and may not quickly respond to your messages, though he encourages you to write them.

Welcome!

Hello, Randomfrenchie, 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!

Some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article RANDOM 17 may not be sufficiently well-known to merit articles of their own. The Wikipedia community welcomes newcomers, and encourages them to become Wikipedians. On Wikipedia, each user is entitled to a user page in which they can describe themselves, and this article's content may be incorporated into that page. However, to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia proper, a subject must be notable. We encourage you to write or improve articles on notable subjects. -- Fr a ncs2000 01:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, if ever you need anything, just ask. -- Fr a ncs2000 00:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dozens

The discussion section of The Dozens is not a forum for discussing the supposed racist nature of Wikipedia editors. Making such blanket statements, that also border on being inflammatory, only makes you look like an ass. Please take some time to think before you start shooting at the mouth. Jerkface03 (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Columbus

I removed that section becuase the critisism is in the rest of the article, so I saw no need for an individual 'section' on that when wikipedia has that spread through-out the article. I was working on that article as part of WP:SPOTLIGHT. This is a collaboration of multiple editors who are working to improve articles. Feel free to join us and ask your question on IRC (detials at WP:SPOTLIGHT). Cheers! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Bill987.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bill987.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image 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 '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 any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder Spot

I have restored the deleted article to User:Randomfrenchie/Wonder Spot. Note that it is a copyvio from the source newspaper article, and as such will be instantly deleted if it shows up in the article namespace. ➥the Epopt 23:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilobbying

Why did you delete the page Wikilobbying? It will not let me recreate it. I know that I can create an unbiased version of that page which will be written in Wikipedia-style. Please let me create it. There is no point of deleting factual articles. The more articles on Wikipedia, the better. Randomfrenchie 22:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was one of dozens of inappropriate pages created as a result of Stephen Colbert's "Wikilobbying" segment. I just made this one a redirect to The Colbert Report. I don't think that "wikilobbying" is a sufficiently important topic to warrant a dedicated article, but you're welcome to propose that one be created. I suggest that you coordinate any such efforts at Talk:The Colbert Report and file a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review when you believe that you're ready to present a compelling argument in favor of the article's existence. If you so desire, you may begin authoring such an article at User:Randomfrenchie/Wikilobbying and cite the resultant prose as evidence. —David Levy 23:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you can help improve the article at User:TV4Fun/Wikilobbying--Kevinkor2 17:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Exarion 02:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. this edit was out of line in more than one way. Please communicate with other users on their talk page, not their user page. Please keep Wikipedia:Civility in mind. Try to discuss differences with other users first; if that isn't working, ask for opinions from 3rd parties. Certainly there will be times when one can be frustrated with other users' actions, but please do not resort to personal insults and profanity. See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes; for problem users, see Wikipedia:Vandalism. Note that replacing a user's page with profanity could be considered vandalism, so I'd strongly advise against doing so. Hope this helps, -- Infrogmation 05:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm?

Okay, apparently I have badly pissed you off by deleting your article. Thing is, I delete a lot, a lot, a lot of articles. SO I honestly don't know which one it was. Tell me, and I'll see if I can explain things to you. Okay? DS 14:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boris, the reason I deleted the article on the Wonder Spot was that it was copied from an article on the Wonder Spot that appeared in a newspaper. It was a copyright violation. You are free to write a new article on the WS, using the newspaper article as a source of information - but not as a source of sentences. Okay? DS 03:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The reason we care about copyright violations is that it leaves us open to legal consequences. We use original material, public domain material, and material that has been licensed under the GFDL. There may be material on Wikipedia that is copyright violation, but we do our best to remove it wherever we find it. Understand now? DS 22:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit box states quite clearly "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted" regardless of your own personal philosophy, you may see the risk as small but that is irrelevant. There also seems to be a misconception here that you hold no personal liability for your postings. Other than the representation that you make that you are contributing these under the GFDL (which if you aren't able to is potentially fraudulent), the information posted here be it libel, copyright infringement or whatever you can personally be held liable for. Regardless of the direct legal risk, wikipedia is also about building a free resource, you may have seen we make much of that, we also rely on donations to keep the project running, there are plenty of critics who would happily jump on any lax attitude to protecting the rights of others, this may then negatively impact out ability to keep the project running. --pgk 22:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dixie Chicks

I agree it's biased. I hope you'll stay around long enough to help correct it. Xiner (talk, email) 05:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response at Talk:Your mom

Please see my response at Talk:Your mom. Also, on talk pages, new comments generally belong at the bottom. —dgies^t_c 20:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary

Hi, you seem to be confusing a proposal to merge two Wikipedia articles (Wiktionary and French Wiktionary) with a proposal to merge the two projects English Wiktionary and French Wiktionary. This is not the same thing at all, and since individual project language editions have no control over the direction of other language editions and Wikipedias have no control over other projects, it would be impossible anyway. Thanks – Qxz 21:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:School 804.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:School 804.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't restore that "public domain" tag on that image. It is definitely not "public domain". The only way we can keep that picture is if you get the owners (presumably the school) to explicitly release it under the GFDL. You need to obtain at least an e-mail from them saying that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milton High School (Alpharetta, Georgia)

Hello. I was wondering, why did you revert my edits to Milton High School? I added a notice on the image's speedy deletion, sourced the Kyle Farnsworth thing, and pruned the "traditions" section. PTO 20:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of edits needed for adminship

Hello! You have asked how many edits are needed for someone to apply for adminship. The answer is NONE. You technically don't need any edits to apply for adminship. However, you almost definately will not pass if you do not have more. There is no official number, but around 4,000 to 6,000 edits is the norm. Sorry if I scared you off, but that's about what you need to have for people to not talk about a lack of experience in your RfA. If you have any other questions you want to ask, leave me a message on my talk page. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That notwithstanding, an empirical analysis would suggest you have an increasing chance of having a successful RfA with an increasing editcount between 1 and 4000 edits. From 4000 edits upwards there is no statistical correlation. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Statistics for more stats and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards/A-D to see which editor have declared they care about editcount and which ones don't. Rockpocket 03:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

some editors are happy with arond 3,000, somw ill accept less. I do not think that any would see your current total of 207 as being anywhere near adequate. It is also important to show a good involvement in WP:NAMESPACE, which means taking part in WP:AfD, WP:RfA and WP:POLICY, etc. discussions.--Anthony.bradbury 00:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

322 edits

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from 322. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Flowerpotman ^talk-_{wot I've done} 22:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

322 (reply to your message)

Sorry, I was a bit confused about what you were trying to do at 322 The standard naming convention for articles about years is to give the article the name of the year. So 322 is the standard place in Wikipedia for the article about the year 322, and to be honest, I think that should stay where it is.

If you want to create a disambiguation page for the number, maybe you should create an article at 322 (disambiguation). You could then add an other uses tag , i.e. {{otheruses4|the year}}, at the 322 article. Hope this helps... Flowerpotman ^talk-_{wot I've done} 22:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All seems to be working. I added a disambig tag to the 322 (disambiguation) page so it gets categorized. Flowerpotman ^talk-_{wot I've done} 23:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Dear editor. I'm puzzled by your renaming of this article to "16th", and by your explanation for the change. Every article I have checked so far shows the title spelled out, as in First Amendment to the United States Constitution, etc. I haven't checked every one (in the case of the United States, all the way through Amendment 27), but I'm unclear as to why this change was really needed. Any comment? Yours, Famspear 21:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up note: OK, I've believe I've checked the articles for all 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution and I can't find a single one (other than the article you changed) that uses the numera format for the number. All appear to spell out the number, as in "First" amendment rather than "1st." Yours, Famspear 22:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cars85

omg; he/she just became a user, don't delete the page right away, wait a few months

Let me highlight the relevant portion of the notice, for your convenience:

"Not an active editor's page: Only two edits (both in March 2006) are to this page. WP is not a permanent free webhost/MySpace substitute."

It appears the userpage is being used for information storage that may be used to create an article.

It's a spam page, part of an identical series of eighteen I tagged today, essentially reproducing a series of ALREADY deleted articles, all created in Match 2006.

Wait a few months. If there are still no edits, then the deletion tag may be applicable

Does "12" count as "a few"? --Calton | Talk 07:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've tagged hundreds of these type of things, and I swear there's no end in sight. I apologize if my message seemed like overkill. --Calton | Talk 23:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you need to be the one to revert the change, because I can't. --Calton | Talk 01:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Calton | Talk 23:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 28, 2007

Please do not violate Wikipedia policy by introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.Pat Payne 21:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page Vandalism

Randomfrenchie,

Thank you for the observation. Please note, however, that it is from March 28 and it has already been addressed. Why you are readdressing it days later is a mystery. Regards. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 05:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Day

Apologies, but the picture you chose isn't allowed, due to copyright issues. We can only use that picture if another one can't be found to replace it - see WP:COPYRIGHT. Hawker Typhoon 01:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to quote from the template here, so bear with me:

It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of promotional material:

- to illustrate the work or product being discussed;
- where the image is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it;
- on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

I've emboldened the key sentence - we can only use fair use if there isn't a free one available - which there is! (apologies if this sounds brusque, it's nearly 3am...)Hawker Typhoon 01:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point, but the key phrase is "or could be created" - I would have thought it'd be relatively easy to get a picture of them performing live that's copyright free. Take a look at the Commons - they may have a picture that would be a suitable replacement. Hawker Typhoon 01:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy enough to get a photo of them at a concert or the like. A free one can easily be created by a Wikipedia fan going to a concert. By all rights, the new picture should not have been uploaded at all, ass we've already got one that's fair use. Hawker Typhoon 19:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Jones

Actually, now that I moved Jan Jones (state rep) to Jan Jones (politician), I am now the only author of the (state rep) page. hbdragon88 23:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I fixed the link already. hbdragon88 00:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Day WikiProject

Hi, I've seen you frequently around the article Green Day and other related articles. Please consider joining the Green Day WikiProject, an effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage and detail regarding Green Day.

If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks that you can help with. Thank you for your time.

Wonder Spot

What, did you think we would forget that you cut and pasted this directly from USA Today, just like you did in February? Don't post this again unless you are willing to put in the effort to write the article in your own words. NawlinWiki 18:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not stalking you -- I have better things to do. I just do C:CSD patrol a lot. Anyway, regardless of how factual your article was, it was a word-for-word cut-and-paste from USA Today. That violates WP:COPYRIGHT. If you rewrite the article in your own words, you'll be fine. NawlinWiki 11:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. You were warned of exactly the same problem here. NawlinWiki 11:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Love Equals Death, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how Love Equals Death is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:Love Equals Death saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. --Finngall ^talk 21:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JAMRS

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article JAMRS, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. 172.135.55.47 05:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Greenspon

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of Jon Greenspon, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://allballots.com/user/candidate_profile.aspx?Id=8302. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 22:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though you cited it, it is still a copyright violation, as many parts of the content were copied word-for-word, and the site it was copied from holds the copyright. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't copy and paste from other websites. That's not writing, it's copying. Whether or not you respect WP:C, you still have to follow it. -- But|seriously|folks 04:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JAMRS

Your edits to this article are a copy and paste of http://milrec.nyclu.org/2f.html and are being removed. -- But|seriously|folks 04:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final Copyright Warning

You have now been caught violating Wikipedia's copyright policy at least ~~three~~ four times. You have been here long enough to know better. If you do it again, you will be blocked. -- But|seriously|folks 04:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the message you left on my user talk page. It is clear from your history that you are a persistent copyright violator and therefore a danger to the project. You either don't get our copyright policies or you have decided that you don't have follow them. If you continue to violate them, you will be blocked despite your enhancement of the project. -- But|seriously|folks 10:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MainPostercoachella.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MainPostercoachella.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 05:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Collins

You may want to read the notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and cannot gaze into the future to guess at future notability. If you have reliable sources of significant coverage of that player, I'll undelete the article into your user space so that you can add the references before moving the article back. — Coren ^(talk) 04:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Robert Haines

Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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. Toddst1 (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Candace.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Candace.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, 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, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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 06:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Candace.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Candace.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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rossrs (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Randomfrenchie! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 178 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Stéphane Udry - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
John Dewberry - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Robert Haines

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

Non-notable individual; fails WP:POLITICIAN

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. William S. Saturn (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Randomfrenchie! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to Charlie Bit My Finger

The video is already listed in the External Links, as is proper Wikipedia style. Thank you! DemocraticLuntz (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll

You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2015 (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) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Randomfrenchie,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Woner456.jpg

The file File:Woner456.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]