User talk:RiseRobotRise

I need user boxes for my user page damnit!!!!!!!!

cools!

Hiya, thanks for your work on the San Diego-related articles. When you make comments on talk pages, put them at the end of the page. Thanks Kellen ^T 11:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't even get started with userboxes; WP people are freaking out about them at the moment. Kellen ^T 11:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a request to delete Mika Miko. Kellen ^T 12:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment - i left a vote and will try and write more of an extended response/flesh out the articles. I kind of think it's ridiculous that someone believes these articles are self-promotional as these are non-profit COMMUNITY-run spaces while bars like the Casbah have pages and that seems to be accepted?? Thanks though!! I will try and integrate that Che info on the article page too, just havent had time lately! hotdiggitydogs 01:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krist Novoselic

In this article you wrote Cobain and Novoselic started a Creedence Clearwater Revival cover band, in which Cobain played drums and Novoselic sang and played guitar. . Is that true? I researched this information, nothing has been said regarding this. I removed that sentence off of the article. If you can provide reliable sources, then it would be alright to reinstate that information.

Michael Azerrad, Come as You Are: The Story of Nirvana, p 54-55:

"Noting that the Melvins were awarded the princely sum of eighty dollars for a night's work, Chris and Kurt started a Creedence Clearwater Revival cover band aptly named the Sellouts. They figured CCR was country-rock and therefore would go over well in rural Aberdeen. The band was Kurt on drums, Chris on guitar, and a fellow named Steve Newman on bass (Newman later lost his fingers in a woodcutting accident). They practiced at Chris and Shelli's house, but it only got as far as five or six rehearsals. They broke up after Kurt and Newman got into a big fight one day at Chris and Shelli's. They were sitting around drinking when Newman tried to attack Kurt with a vacuum cleaner. Kurt grabbed a two-by-four and brained his much larger opponent."

Google doesn't always have the answer. -- ChrisB 05:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've skimmed though a few books myself on grunge, if you reinstate that information, please site your source. I'll have to go check that information out myself, it's certainly interesting RiseRobotRise 05:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Come as You Are is probably the definitive Nirvana bio, as Azerrad spent several months on tour with the band talking to them about their history. Some of it is flawed, given that Cobain and Novoselic admittedly embellished some of their stories, and it's sometimes hard to split the fact from the fiction. But, even in those cases, it's their fiction, not something somebody else invented (which is part of the problem with Charles Cross' Heavier than Heaven). -- ChrisB 06:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swing Kids afd discussion

Hey, thanks for your help and support in keeping the article. As you're aware, this is my first article on Wikipedia so I'm painfully "noobish." This has been a great learning experience I must say. Curtyv 17:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

– Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:MovingUnits.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MovingUnits.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Gggah.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Gggah.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:TheCasbah.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:TheCasbah.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} 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 media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images 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. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've placed a tag on the image, but you need to include a source as well, so other can go there and verify its accuracy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trunk Space, Modified Arts, and Paper Heart Gallery

Hello. I was hoping for your opinion on the articles I created for these venues, seeing as I used Che Cafe, The Smell, 924 Gilman Street, and The Casbah as models for them. Please respond on my talk page, or, any corresponding AfDs. Thanks! PT ^(s-s-s-s) 00:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HeartattaCk

Would you be able to lend a hand on either contributing reliable sources for this article or providing your opinion on the corresponding AfD? PT ^(s-s-s-s) 00:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

response

Hi! Sorry for the delay. My IP was autoblocked and I've been trying to get that fixed. Anyway, yes, I'm very interested, as much as time will allow. We will be in touch! PT ^(s-s-s-s) 21:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HeartattaCk

I believe the decision to delete this article was made in error, so I have asked for a deletion review. Since you were involved in the AfD on this, I wanted to inform you so that you might weigh in. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 17:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The Casbah

hey dude - go ahead and remove the "references needed tag". take care! Shamrox 19:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

I appreciate that! I'll keep watching... Parsssseltongue 01:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Sbarkfe

I've noticed that you wrote a message to that user and told him that his/her article will be soon deleted. Although he may be a vandal. I think it should be necessary to assume good faith and allow him/her the opportunity to contest any kind of motion to delete the article.

The article is currently going though AFD. Please allow the AFD to stand for a week or so, unless if no supportive information is supplied. Thank you RiseRobotRise 03:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your message to the above editor makes an assumption that I have "an agenda" against the article. Upon what evidence do you base that accusation? The article was deleted because it was unsourced nonsense of no encyclopedic value. Citing and referencing sources would demonstrate a degree of academic rigour on the part of the contributing editor and would also allow for the information to be verified. The AfD process gives the author or other interested party five days to perform this task before consensus is reached.

If you would like to discuss my reasons for deleting an article then please leave me a message to that effect. It is not good practise to encourage an editor to repost speedily deleted material whilst making assumptions about the reasons an admin deleted it in the first place. (aeropagitica) 09:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to make you think I'm a vandal, I had no intention...I should of taken more time to plan this out before I made the page...but I didn't know wiki works that way...I thought I would just be able to start the article and people who know what they are doing could go through and add what they know about it. --Sbarkfe 02:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted at 00:25, November 19 and recreated at 00:41 the same day. Your message was left at 04:17, by which time the article had been recreated, so the red link would have turned blue again; the recreation had already occurred by the time that you left your message. The message left for Sbarkfe is a standard deletion warning, left for hundreds of editors every day.

You didn't just leave a message asking for sources to be stated, you questioned my reasons for deletion without questioning me, making an assumption without my rationale. I haven't assumed that the editor knows anything about policy or how to write good articles because if they did then I wouldn't have had a reason to delete it and the article wouldn't have gone to AfD with an overwhelming delete consensus, the only two keep votes from yourself and the author. I haven't bitten any newcomers or made assumptions about their knowledge of process or emotional state. I deleted an encyclopedic page and informed the author of this process, something that I and many other admins do on an ongoing basis as a daily task. The standard warnings are part of the process. If you want to debate the merits of the wording of standard warnings then you can do so at WP:ANB for starters. (aeropagitica) 05:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hey, thanks for participating in my recent RFA. You were amongst a number of editors who considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and as a consequence the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). I am extremely grateful that you took the time to advise me on to improve as a Wikipedian and I'd like to assure you that I'll do my level best to develop my skills here to a point where you may feel you could trust me with the mop.

I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)[reply]

Yo

Dude, I, like, created my account more than a month ago! That aint that recent!!!!!! I, like, totally undersytand EVERY regunaion and rule in Wikipedia! No offense, but why do you care about when I created my account! Sheesh! Khgj 21:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In XFDs, or any kind of Wikipedia talk, users who contribute to them often have their histories taken into account. Please note that your history would indicate to other users (especially closing admins) that you either might be a sockpuppet or a user with little experience with little knowledge on Wikipedia policies. I'd also like to let you know, it is not good practice to remove a user's comment without the user's consent on a discussion page. I'm sorry for this incursion, and I hope you understand. RiseRobotRise 03:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chess

Want to play a game of chess? RiseRobotRise 05:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you can find the chess table here. If you want to be white, go ahead and move. If you want to be black, then let me know. - Kevin ^(TALK) 16:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make a random pick on the color, once I find a black and white chess piece RiseRobotRise 19:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, whenever you're ready to start a new game, it'll be right here. You choose color again. -- Kevin ^(TALK)_(MUSIC) 19:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Can I play a game of chesse with you? I have a board set up at here. Thanks. pizza1512 ^{Talk Autograph} 19:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Comments

So what about orginal research, that shouldn't be the sole grounds for deletion.
— RiseRobotRise

Are you kidding me? Have you actually read the original research policy? Do you understand it is one of only three content policies on Wikipedia? If you can't properly understand or comply with Wiki policy then I don't think you should participate in ?fD debates. /Blaxthos 12:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for the refresher course in the WP:NOR policy. From what I understand, the original research policy explains that original research doesn’t belong on Wikipedia, which I agree with. If the content is unverifiable, then it doesn’t belong on this encyclopedia. However, the content in the AFD discussion which you refer to is verifiable, can be easily sourced, and has more than enough information on the web to back it up (on many Verifiable and Reliable sources which I may add) and yes, I have pointed that out in my comment. So no need for the rude remarks. While we're on topic of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, I would recommend might want to take a look at WP:CIVL, No personal attacks and you might want to work on your Etiquette. Thank you - RiseRobotRise 21:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't have it both ways -- if it is original research, it is not allowed. As I understand it, this is a non-negotiable policy. It is not the content I'm talking about, it is your blatant disregard of said policies that I find offensive. In no way have I issued a personal attack; I just don't let people casually disregard the rules when it suits them. I apologize if you found it offensive. /Blaxthos 21:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what WP:NOR is, and I'm fully aware of the policy. Please know that I have cited about five major sources in the debate. I have clearly stated in the AFD discussion, that because the content is verifiable, with a list of reliable sources, then it shouldn't be deleted, sources and references should just be added to the page. I hope you understand my reasoning for me wagering in a Keep on that page. If I weren’t for the abundance of any reliable source, I would've voted delete. RiseRobotRise 21:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then shouldn't you say "I can add reliable sources" instead of "So what about orginal research, that shouldn't be the sole grounds for deletion."? Ignoring entrenched policy is almost never the right answer, and requires extraordinary circumstances, which I do not believe have been met in this instance. Once again, my criticism is leveled at the comment you made in the face of one of only three content policies -- I make no debate about whether it is or is not original research, I simply challenge the statement you made. Sorry if it came across the wrong way. /Blaxthos 21:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Addendum - Where are these reliable sources? How has it come close to satisfying notability requirements? As the AfD progresses, it seems the community does not agree with your position. /Blaxthos 22:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I wasn't trying to circumvent any rules. I wrote that statement, because I was questioning the nominator's endorsement. As I believed that he/she decided to endorse the article for deletion without doing any proper investigation to see if the article had any significance whatsoever. I know the article contains a large amount of original research or non-sourced information, but if the article was properly sourced, there wouldn't need to be any reason for deletion (as I said in the last sentence "Surely, we can look beyond what we see as original research, and verify the information ourselves. ". Please understand that the tone of your message overall sounded negative, and the last statement "then I don't think you should participate in ?fD debates. " can be seen by many readers as rude, and inappropriate. I understand now that the intention of your message was to make sure I was aware of certain policies. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, and I hope we can move past it. Please try to be more polite in the future. As for these reliable sources, if you read what I posted, you can clearly see that these links bring you to articles on Griefing found on Microsoft’s website, G4 Tech TV's website, Escapist's magazine, and many others, as for the AFD itself, it seems that the consensus on the AFD discussion is swinging on the side of keep, mostly because comments made by other users who also pointed out notable reliable sources. One editor actually changed his/her decision from delete to keep. I'll change the wording of my statement so it doesn’t sound too ignorant of the WP:NOR policy. P.S I wish no bad blood between us, I hope that in the future, we both can come together on more friendly terms, and work with each other in a constructive manner. Thank you -RiseRobotRise 06:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, shit online doesn't get my blood up, . I am aware that I have a rather curt attitude towards those who appear to care nothing for the policies and guidelines contained herein. I think a lot of people on wikipedia try to bend/stretch/conveniently ignore the rules when it suits them, much like most people speed when a cop isn't around. Conflict in the short term is necessary to keep wikipedia in balance; conflict in the long run hurts us all. As a general rule for me, once we've said our peace it's done. ;-) /Blaxthos 06:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no problem here with me, thanks alot :) -RiseRobotRise 06:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for your rather eloquent explanation of the situation. I should have been more explicit in my original answer, because quite a few people seem to have misunderstood what happened. Cheers. yandman 19:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey no problem, I was slightly alarmed that people decided to talk about that issue without really knowing what went on. Good luck on your adminship. :) RiseRobotRise 00:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:On! Air! Library!.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:On! Air! Library!.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Gggah.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Gggah.jpg. I notice the image 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. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.BetacommandBot 04:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:MovingUnits.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:MovingUnits.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 23:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:A-Austr.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:A-Austr.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 06:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is being used. Look again RiseRobotRise 19:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MovingUnits.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:MovingUnits.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:On!_Air!_Library!.jpg

I have tagged Image:On!_Air!_Library!.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:DigitalUnicorn.jpg

File Copyright problem

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

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:A-Austr.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:A-Austr.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there RiseRobotRise, 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:RiseRobotRise/Marathon Trilogy. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

See a log of files removed today here.

Shut off the bot here.

Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of A-Austr

The article A-Austr has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Only the weakest assertion of notability. Possibly deserves a reference in another article.

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:28, 9 August 2011 (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) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Maratrilogy.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Maratrilogy.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) 02:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of GoGoGo Airheart for deletion

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

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GoGoGo Airheart until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]