User talk:Silas S. Brown

Blindsight

Hi -- I have no doubt that your addition was well-intended, but references shouldn't be added to articles unless they are used to back up material in the text. Publications that add signficant information can be added to a "Further reading" section if necessary, but the threshold for that is pretty high. I'm going to remove the reference you added, but if it says something important enough to go into the text and you add that, I don't have any objection to the reference coming back. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Silas S. Brown (talk) 11:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Silas S. Brown! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. 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 this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 616 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Yang Yueqing - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a very brief stub. Now blanked as nobody else had expanded it (and I don't have any other refs) + had been marked questionable notability. Silas S. Brown (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Hàn Thế Thành

I have nominated Hàn Thế Thành, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hàn Thế Thành. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Pcap ping 08:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK this makes sense; I have no trouble with the deletion. Silas S. Brown (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debian

Wouldn't the information on NAS support be better suited to Linux or Linux kernel? As far as I know, this isn't a Debian-specific feature. 72.64.220.179 (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think many other distros have specifically added support for NAS at the distribution level though. Silas S. Brown (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Braille embosser ad copyvio

I read your findings. So, then we can remove the (heavy) template. OK with me. It's just, my first encounter with copyvio this way. Consider solved, or do you need anything from me? Have nice edits, -DePiep (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good. You too :-) Silas S. Brown (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Messiah

Check the section called Sources and there you will find full details of Luckett. --GuillaumeTell 19:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC) Thanks. That's the first time I've come across an article that has both a References section and a Sources section (and that after the references section). Silas S. Brown (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand, the psalms are in the translation from the Common Book of prayer, whereas the other Bible texts are from the King James version. No? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. When I read "Book of Common Prayer" I thought of the Anglican sacraments etc which are definitely not in the Messiah. I'll try clarifying it to "the Psalms included with the Book of Common Prayer (which are worded slightly differently from their King James counterparts)". Silas S. Brown (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge University WP soc

(from [1]) There's no process yet - just sign your name onto the list for now! Der yck C. 16:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Cell Chinese Braille

Hi Silas,

I split this off as a separate article. Can you tell me where you got your info? I think I've found your source (a copy here), but unfortunately that copy uses the PUA of the font for braille, making it mostly illegible, and I can't find the font. (Or rather I can find it, but it's packed in an exe file that won't run on my computer.) And a few things don't check out, such as b = zh in our article but not in the doc, so I think there may be a couple typos. [I commented out the braille assignments until we can confirm.]

Thanks — kwami (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what would be a good way of making images accessible to the blind, short of trusting people to do it manually? We now have a template, {{bc}}, which generates either Unicode or graphics. Would including the Unicode as the alt text for the graphics work? — kwami (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it. Here's the link for the diffs tween our approaches: [2] — kwami (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Superfeedr for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Superfeedr is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superfeedr until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Chinese medicine

I've removed your disclaimer here.Curb Chain (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way you worded it sure was a disclaimer. We look for professional writing here on wikipedia.Curb Chain (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We all make mistakes Silas S. Brown (talk) 12:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

🔗 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 🔗. Since you had some involvement with the 🔗 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). The Banner _talk 12:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	That unicode looks like a lot of work. Keep it up. 1966batfan (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to Hangul

Any reason that you are creating dozens (hundreds?) of redirects to Hangul? They don't seem like likely search terms at all. Fram (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop and discuss this first. You have created thousands of redirects to the same page so far. Why? Fram (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have you blocked you now. You have been creating many, many redirects very fast, without stopping to discuss then. There is no reason to continue such creations when asked to stop and discuss this first. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and discussion is our prime method of getting the best result. Ignoring requests and continuing with the same behaviour, no matter if it was as such good or bad, is not the way to edit here. Fram (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised this issue for outside review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive241#User talk:Silas S. Brown and his thousands of redirects to Hangul. Fram (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! The edits were being done by a script I wrote using simplemediawiki, to redirect all hangul syllables to Hangul, as I have redirected all private-use Unicode characters to Private Use (Unicode), braille patterns to Braille Patterns (Unicode), etc. (I had seen some Unicode redirects before and thought perhaps the job should be completed.)

The script was running unattended, so I didn't see your messages. Thankfully, the script crashed when it was blocked. Silas S. Brown (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was the script approved to run? Also the redirects seem to be unreasonable and unnecessary redirects as items unlikely to be entered into the English Language Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 13:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not get prior approval to run the script, perhaps I should have done? (Is there a policy I should have read?) Silas S. Brown (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: see Wikipedia:Bots -- The Anome (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Silas S. Brown (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I look forward to seeing you participating in the bot group -- we need more technically knowledgeable people to be bot operators. -- The Anome (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses and the unblock. Discussion about the technical aspects of running scripts and so on indeed belongs at the bot group. Discussion about whether such redirects are wanted belongs elsewhere. I have raised the question at the An discussion as well, if anyone knows what would be the best place for such a discussion feel free to direct us there. In the meantime, I would ask Silas S. Brown not to create anymore similar redirects (manually or by bot) until we have some guidance on it. Fram (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've written up some details for discussion at User:Silas S. Brown/Unicode redirects Silas S. Brown (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My very rough count shows a bit under 14,000 redirects were created. I think it would be more disruptive to mass-delete all of them so you might want to start a RFC at Talk:Hangul (and x-post other redirect targets) to get input on whether they should continue to exist or be mass-deleted. At that point, if consensus is to keep them, file a WP:BRFA and create the remaining ones. Legoktm (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've started Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 20#14,000 Unicode characters to discuss these. Fram (talk) 09:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think thats probably a better venue for discussion. Will comment there shortly. Legoktm (talk) 09:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you get permission to create any more of these redirects, please could you modify the script to tag them as redirects from Uincode. The syntax is

#REDIRECT [[Target]] {{R from Unicode}}

with no linebreaks. This will make it easier to keep track of them. For the same reason, if someone with a suitable approved bot could likewise tag those that have already been created that would be useful. The latter task does not need to wait on the outcome of the RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind tagging them with my bot as it would be relatively simple, however I think it would be best to let the RfD finish first, then if they are kept, to tag them rather than tagging a bunch and then having them deleted. Legoktm (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superfeedr

Discussions aren't re-opened, but if you believe the close was in error (which I think it was - balanced headcount, at least plausibly sufficient sources for WP:N reads as no consensus or keep to me), there's a process for reviewing the close at deletion review. Wily D 07:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Storage heaters

Hi - I see where you were coming from with your edit, but you changed it to say that "it can be difficult", as opposed to "it cannot be done". We fall into the latter category: we have tried twice and have been barred from switching. It is important to note that the reality of consumer choice simply does not exist for many homes with storage heaters, which is essentially a form of social exclusion. Surely that is a disadvantage that should not be diminished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.180.118 (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Sure, maybe "difficult" was the wrong word, let's try "prohibitively expensive because the meter needs to be replaced first" Silas S. Brown (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laundry Detergent

I reverted the section you added to Laundry detergent which you made a couple of weeks ago, here . The reference source from straightdope was unclear in its brief comparison of detergent with water, but it also stated that this was _after_ using stain remover, which usually have detergents of their own. I would not regard that article as a reliable source for the subject of the necessity of detergents on laundry. Greasy dirt does not simply leave laundry when plain water is applied. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 06:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had missed these points. Silas S. Brown (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Raspbian for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Raspbian is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raspbian until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Thanks for letting me know, although I only made a minor edit to the article and don't have much to contribute to its deletion discussion Silas S. Brown (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

城

You should actually learn Chinese before you pretend to have knowledge in such matters. 城 can form different words, and Castle is one of them, while in Japanese, which is THE topic we are talking about, 城 IS castle without the Chinese City meaning, since Japanese uses the term 都市 for City. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 18:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've been learning Chinese for years and have performed simultaneous interpretations but that doesn't mean I know everything; I thought I'd be bold and expect a correction if needed. I do seem to remember Laputa's title being translated "city in the sky" by fan sites etc before the English release was made; perhaps this was a misunderstanding that arose from the fact that in Chinese 城 seems to mean city (as in 城市) much more often than castle (as in 城堡); the ABC C-E Dictionary defines 城 as "①wall ②city wall ③city; town" with no mention of castle. But it's interesting that the use is different in Japanese. Silas S. Brown (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article in Japanese wikipedia said the reason of this difference is because they don't have that many cities with city walls, thus the term was used specifically for castles. That is possibly the same reason they use 都市 instead of 城市. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 05:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Back and Forth (software)

The article Back and Forth (software) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Software with no indication of notability.

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. TexasAndroid (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I guess it makes more sense to redirect and merge into DOS Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 10:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Hi Silas,

Good meeting you again today and finally having a proper conversation :) Nice to learn about your interests in Chinese culture etc. See you again next CUWPS meetup or whenever!

cmɢʟee୯ ͡° ̮د ͡° ੭ 19:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PD photos

Hi, Silas. I just wanted to clarify for you that a photo of a copyrighted user interface is generally not considered to be free-use, so you probably can't release File:Firefox connection failure on Park and Ride bus Cambridge.jpg under PD. You might want to check into other licensing tags to see which would be most appropriate. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I don't understand what other tag would be appropriate. The PD tag does include an "in case this is not legally possible" clause which should catch things. The "copying" of a small amount of the UI in a photograph is hopefully incidental enough to be considered "fair use", and I don't think fair use is affected by the choice of license of the document using it (although I'm not a lawyer). Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 12:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rashumon

Hi. I have seen your changes in this article, as you have placed the sources. What would be the best way to create cites? Michael Haephrati (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Palringo

Hi – I have prepared a userspace draft with a view to replacing the current article for Palringo, which has been flagged for some time for poor referencing and notability issues. I contacted a recent contributor to that article but he/she is unlikely to have time to help, and I saw that you'd recently done some work on the WhatsApp entry. I have a (fully declared) COI in that I work for Bell Pottinger – a UK PR agency – and that Palringo is my client. I've made this clear on the article talk page, in my userspace, and on COIN. The redraft is fully referenced and NPOV. If you have time to take a look at my redraft (it's not long – c. 550 words), that would be very much appreciated. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Windows Phone 7 devices for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Windows Phone 7 devices is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Windows Phone 8 devices until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ViperSnake151 Talk 04:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of WeChat for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WeChat is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WeChat until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 10:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

⭕ listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ⭕. Since you had some involvement with the ⭕ redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Adam9007 (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

📶 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 📶. Since you had some involvement with the 📶 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Adam9007 (talk) 03:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google Play

Hi @Silas S. Brown: I appreciate your contributions to Google Play. I have partially kept your edit, but some information had to be removed. Wikipedia relies on sources and verifiability from reliable, published sources, and the Chinese info, unfortunately, does not have that. You are more than welcome to make contributions to Wikipedia, but please follow our guidelines. Also, please note, I am not on a personal mission against you, I am simply focused on the content. I hope to see you around making positive contributions to Wikipedia with sources. Have a good day! :) LocalNet (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The reason why I wanted this info noted was that I personally find it hard to read the small word at the bottom of the badge when I'm helping someone with their small-display phone, and I got confused with a Chinese phone because the numbers weren't what I expected and I was concerned I might be installing the wrong app. The info about stylization in English was a direct description of the images from the cited article, but I don't know if there's some rule about "Wikipedians don't have the authority to translate images into words like that" (if there is, it could be a bit debilitating; I'd suggest allowing it in trivial cases where there is no contention that the words chosen are a fair description of the image). The Chinese stylisation was from direct observation: it is verifiable easily enough by anyone who actually owns an Android phone and is willing to change its language settings into Chinese mode, but I suppose you'll want to cite a secondary source if this primary source is not archived—it's hard to find good secondary sources for this; the only one I found in a cursory search was this screenshot on a Chinese discussion thread which clearly shows the Tumblr app marked "5,000 万" in orange (a 万 is 10,000, so 5,000 of them is 50 million), but then it's only a discussion group so the poster could have faked the image for all we know :-) Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 12:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again @Silas S. Brown: Just a helpful hint: In the future, when replying to someone, I suggest starting the reply with {{Ping|username}} so the user you are responding to gets a notification of your reply. It was a complete coincidence that I checked back here, otherwise I might never have seen your post :) But in regards to your reply: You were absolutely correct about the full milestone numbers being a part of the citation, as I haven't heard of any rules "against" translating images in sources into words on Wikipedia. Might prove troubling long into the future if the image disappears, but I have never encountered that problem, and there is still the regular written text for some of the milestones. I value your contributions and therefore kept all the milestones :) But when it comes to the Chinese language: information on Wikipedia should be based on published sources that can be linked to through a reference so anyone at any time should be able to look up the source and see that it's correct. Having to own an Android phone and be willing to switch to Chinese language unfortunately doesn't fit that bill, and might cross into the territory of original research. And when it comes to sources, you are also right in what you write here about discussion groups not being reliable sources. So I'm happy to see that you do understand what I mean, and that's good :) LocalNet (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary

A lay dictionary is not a sufficient source for medical content. Normal body temperature is a range not a single point. That number is already included in the other ranges provide. Also you do not provide sufficient details about the source to check the source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Doc James:. I realised that old dictionary is outdated and not reliable as a medical source, but nevertheless thought it was adequate to document that, at least in the 1970s, human body temperature was also called "blood heat", and was (incorrectly) thought by many lay people to be 98.4°F exactly. This statement clearly has to be put in its proper context as a historical misconception, but still seems to be notable. I just checked the 2010 edition of the Oxford Dictionary of English under "blood heat", and they still had this definition: "the normal body temperature of a healthy human being, about 37°C or 98.4°F." At least they said "about", but where exactly did the "point four" come from? Not from an exact conversion of 37°C, which is 98.6°F. Is it possible that 98.4°F came first, before celsius was in widespread use, and whoever converted it to celsius realised that writing "36.9°C" would be too many significant digits for such a variable quantity? OED online's entry now says 98.6 (perhaps some OED editor realised 98.4 was not an exact conversion of 37C?) and doesn't cite any 98.4s in their sources, so why did so many people say 98.4? Citing a reference or two that gives this figure might eventually lead to someone who knows coming forward with the original source—it would be nice to know how this idea spread. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 20:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We state "The normal human body temperature is often stated as 36.5–37.5 °C (97.7–99.5 °F)." Both 98.4 and 98.6 is well within that range. Normal body temperature is not a point but a range which is why the OED says "about". Do we have a source that comments on the 98.4 versus 98.6 difference? Not sure it is notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have updated the lead of that article to reflect the most commonly reported range. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again @Doc James: the only half-decent lead I can find on the origins of the "98.4" figure is a mention on this archived page of a 100-year-old study giving a mean of 36.88C [=98.384F] which was then rounded. He doesn't name the study; we'd have to check his reference 5 which is a book I can't get my hands on right now. It probably shouldn't be in the article's lead section, but maybe in a section on historical understanding if we can dig up enough extra information to flesh it out into a proper section (same source points to 19th-century books saying 98F). Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 21:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a historical section sounds reasonable to discuss how these estimates have changed over time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Gueh for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gueh is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B̤ē until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of ڄ for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ڄ is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B̤ē until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of X Input Method

The article X Input Method has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"🅿" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 🅿. Since you had some involvement with the 🅿 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect  and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 10# until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"뻸" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 뻸 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 8#뻸 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 00:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"겋" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 겋 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 9#겋 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 17:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"겊" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 겊 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 9#겋 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 17:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"겉" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 겉 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 9#겋 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 17:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"겈" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 겈 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 9#겋 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 17:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"겇" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 겇 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 9#겋 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 17:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"겆" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 겆 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 9#겋 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 17:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"겅" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 겅 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 9#겋 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 17:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"겄" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 겄 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 9#겋 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 17:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"것" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 것 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 9#겋 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 17:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of China Youth Returnee Association

The article China Youth Returnee Association has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Website for commercial recruitment organisation, not showing sourcing to pass WP:NCORP.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 12:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"📗" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 📗 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 7 § 📗 until a consensus is reached. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jana Amin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jana Amin, 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/Jana Amin (2nd nomination) 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, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Audiofy bookchip for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Audiofy bookchip is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audiofy bookchip until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"🆓" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 🆓 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 9 § 🆓 until a consensus is reached. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 20:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]