User talk:Wikipedian06

Hi Wikipedian06,

I've just noticed you've blanked your talk-page.
As I too was taught this, I thought I might best pass it on, but it's policy never to delete your talkpage information. If you want to clean it up, you can create an archive and move it there, like User talk:Wikipedian06/Archive. Feel free to take a look how I did it for an idea.

Cheers JackSparrow Ninja 04:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to move pages to bad titles or before discussions about the title have ended, as you did to NaN, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Dungeons in The Legend of Zelda series

An editor has nominated Dungeons in The Legend of Zelda series, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeons in The Legend of Zelda series and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 18:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

Leaving a message at the talk page doesn't mean you can just go ahead and add anything you like to the article. No one even responded on the talk page yet, so there's no consensus for your edit. Also, this goth thing you keep adding is just POV nonsense. It's funny how you revert someone else's edit (who called Midna a beautiful, tall woman) for POV, but consider calling her a Goth is NPOV. What's also funny is that I supposedly need a chill pill, while you're the one flying off the handle in a big way. You say I need to learn about Wikipedia etiquette. Is that some kind of joke? I've rarely encountered someone so uncivil in both his edit summaries and his user talk messages. "READ THE FUCKING TALK PAGE KTHNXBAI" doesn't inspire me to go into great detail when reverting your edits. Lastly, I gave you a vandalism warning because you reverted all the way back to your own last edit, thereby disregarding any edits in between. It put back a lot of unsourced stuff in the article.--Atlan (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the vandalism warning, since I guess it was an accident. Please be more careful when you revert to an older edit next time.--Atlan (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image uploading

You need to put in fair-use rationale for your images, as well as upload them in a low resolution. I'm not going to do any more than Image:ZeldaTP.jpg for you, so you have to do them yourself. I'm marking them for deletion, which has a 7 day deadline. Also, you need to properly source them. Be more specific than www.nintendo.com - Zero1328 _Talk? 14:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Bongobongo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bongobongo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright 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. 06:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:TP_cg_Midna03.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TP_cg_Midna03.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright 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. 07:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Bongobongo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bongobongo.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 '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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deathly Hallows

I notice you've removing content from Deathly Hallows today. There's no consensus on your removal, and please see also my comment on this talk page, my apologies for the inconvenience. Should you find yourself disagree with what I said, please reopen the archive 14 debate on the Deathly Hallows talk page so that it can be easier for all parties to get involved in the discussion and avoid reverting one another. Thank you for your understanding. Peacent 16:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2007

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Horcrux, you will be blocked from editing. Gscshoyru 19:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horcrux

I'm not vandalising the page, you stupid moron. I'm adding legitimate, sourced information from my copy of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows from DeepDiscount.com, which shipped the book several days early as a mistake on their part. Because I have a legitimate hard copy of the book and am not relying on the "leak," the info is fully legitimate, and there is no reason for Wikipedia to withhold information in this situation.

Get your facts straight, and quit accusing everyone of "vandalism." Did you even read my edits?

Wikipedian06 19:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. But seeing as I don't have proof you really have the book, it's still not verifiable, and you still can't post it. And if it is real... can't you wait like 4 days before posting it? Thanks. Gscshoyru 19:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting 4 days

It's not Wikipedia's duty to withhold information as they become available. Read the talk page on HP7.

If the media is reporting all these leaks (and in many cases, actually including plot details within the news articles), why can't Wikipedia have information once it's readily available?

Wikipedian06 19:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no proof that it's a leak and not a hoax. I suggest you take a look at the talk page, because at the bottom it says stuff about people who post spoilers being banned. Gscshoyru 19:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophilius Lovegood

Deleted, same reasons as above -- and if you insist on continuing to do this, you'll get blocked until 12:01 am on Saturday. NawlinWiki 05:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits made during July 20 2007 (UTC)

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Chaser - T 22:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility!

It is not acceptable to call other users 'idiots' in your edit summaries, or indeed anywhere at all. Please see WP:CIVIL and WP:No personal attacks. Continued behaviour in that manner may lead to blocks. For what it's worth, at the time you submitted that summary, you were technically wrong — the book was yet to be legally released for 6 minutes. I realise it's easy to get riled, but remember not to panic and that, most importantly, there is no deadline. Thanks! Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 23:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potter

Please don't delete alrge parts of the article to add new info. Add your info in the right section and integrate it into what is already there. Thanks. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posted Information regarding Deathly Hallows

At 23:10 On July 20, 51 minutes before the book was released you edited the article Severus Snape and disclosed that his Patronus is a Doe, which is a major plot point in Deathly Hallows. Ipodman 10:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Personal Attacks

I was crossing out personal attacks to show people that it was wrong. However, I did not remove them because that would be censorship. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Deathly Hallows

It's WAY too long, and we do NOT need chapter-by-chapter summaries detailing every minor event in the book. Judging from previous books, I'd say 8-10 paragraphs is a good length; any more than that, and it's excessively long & overly detailed. Anyone else agree? Wikipedian06 17:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing compared to the richness of the prose... Suggest the chapters format for a few months as then can be section edited by the many. //FrankB 17:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows"[reply]

Let me add, this will undoubtably grow to about ten times the current length based on prior articles. Though I tend to agree, ;perfering a 'sense' synopsis, no one will likely agree on what should be included, as all six prior novels lend plot elements to this. It's very rich, indeed. Nothing like this has ever happened in literature before. Even isn't of the same magnitude, and that is 165 years back. Hence, I suggest the chapters for now.

Submit best use of editing time after chapter sections would be to minimize plot revelations for a few months. We've centuries to write an encyclopedaic article, right now, the responsible thing would be to protect the facts as much as possible for the enjoyment of the youngest readers. Best regards. // FrankB 17:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

I've undone this edit that you made. Please read WP:SEASON. 17Drew 21:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the deathly hallows

you have not discussed the changes you are making on the talk page. Therefore, your edits are the vandalism, not mine. It is a consensus that the list of killed characters is staying, therefore it is staying. Stop removing it. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 03:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Ch2kdestroyedqs8.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ch2kdestroyedqs8.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 '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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2007

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to HP7, you will be blocked from editing. HP7 is english, and if you carry on, you will probably be banned from editing Wikipedia. Someone dedicated to making your day a little bit better! 10:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any vandalism in your edit, but you should use more polite edit summaries. Thank you, Kusma (talk) 11:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Beramuu.PNG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Beramuu.PNG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the 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 non-free media 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. Ejfetters 21:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TP cg Midna03.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:TP cg Midna03.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the 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 non-free media 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. Ejfetters 10:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Article Priority

Please leave it to the appropriate Wikiprojects to decide what their priorities are and are not. As of now, Brawl is high priority and Melee is top priority for Wikiproject Nintendo, regardless of your personal vendetta against those games. We would appreciate it if you leave the priority messages be until WP:NIN and WP:VG decide to change them. You Can 't Review Me!!! 17:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Galaxy

Do you have proof that it's really a gameplay video of SMG? Youtube is rarely a reliable source. Mario, the coins, and the manta ray look extremely similar, if not the same as SM64. — Malcolm (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy talk page

That wasn't neccesary. Please be more civil in further comments. DurinsBane87 04:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more civil and watch your language next time. Uch iha 23 05:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MuggleNet.com's What Will Happen in Harry Potter 7

Thanks for the explanation of why you reverted the MuggleNet article, but your reasons for doing so really don't stand up.

There is no evidence that I got my information from the forums because I didn't do so. Similarity of subject matter and/or conclusions is no such proof. When different people independently analyse the same information they may very well come to the same conclusions, which is the reason for any similarities between MuggleNet's forums and "What Will Happen...". There are also huge differences between the content of the forums and the book, particularly with reference to whether Harry is a Horcrux or not.

I do have an account for the MuggleNet forum, obtained several years ago and not used for a very long time. I'm sure, if necessary, the technical staff from the site can check for the date of my last login, which was well before the development of the book. This is far better proof that I didn't use the forums than any similarities in conclusions, which simply come from the fact that similar evidence was being considered.

I believe that Wikipedia is striving to present information as accurate as possible, and I'm simply aiding this process by using the knowledge that I have - which I have because I know more about the writing of "What Will Happen..." than you do. I replaced an incorrect statement with a correct one, so please don't increase the inaccuracy of the article by keeping on changing it back. Bobby Skank 12:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass genre dispute

You stated on the talk page of this article that the game is classified as an action-adventure game on Nintendo's website. Where exactly is this statement? It would be useful to end the dispute over it at the moment. Haipa Doragon (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Boo-mario.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Boo-mario.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 18:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Beramuu.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Beramuu.PNG. 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 02:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Beramuu.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Beramuu.PNG. 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 14:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TP cg Midna03.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TP cg Midna03.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

You shouldn't remove something from the body of an article simply because it's found in the lead. The lead serves as summary of the article, so this is to be expected. If the lead contained only information not found in the article body, this would be a problem. Pagra shtak 21:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Super Mario Galaxy archiving

Hi Wikipedian06,

Just a quick note that your archiving of the talk page may have been a bit hasty. The size of the page should not be the deciding factor so much as the age of the threads--as I noted in my post there, you archived one discussion that was still active only a few hours ago, and there are many others which have been posted to in the past couple of days and may very well still be active. Given the relatively low frequency of discussion, I don't believe that people should have to revive threads they are participating in just because they were gone for a day--even ANI uses a 24-hour limit.

I appreciate that you are trying to keep the page accessable through dial-up, but you have to be wary of actions like this one, particularly since you followed up the archive with a large post of your own. I've suggested implementing MiszaBot functionality on the talk page with a 15-day expiry so we don't need to worry about this in the future. --jonny-m t 06:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've continued the discussion on the new page. Apologies for the inconvenience! Wikipedian06 (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Beramuu.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Beramuu.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Relative velocity

An editor has nominated Relative velocity, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relative velocity and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Galaxy

I was wondering why you removed the regional sale figures from the Super Mario Galaxy article [1]. They seemed to have been sourced and (in my opinion) added to the article in a positive way. Is it because they were out of date or did you just think they were unnecessary? Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was unnecessary of you to remove all that information. Please discuss this first. The Prince (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Please don't make personal attacks against other users in edit summaries, like you did in Super Mario Galaxy. It may result in you getting blocked. The Prince (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Famitsu

Hi there! I reverted your edits again, and invite you to discuss the matter at Talk:Famitsu#Original research. The problem is that you are drawing a conclusion based on an opinion that is not referenced, and according to our policy, if A = B and B = C then A = C is original research if we don't find a reference for A = C. Cheers! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Bros. Brawl

Hey, I noticed that you removed a edit [2] hat had already been okayed in the discussion page. You gave information that Ruby and Sapphire and Super Mario exceeded the opening week sales? Would you care to give me a reference? I'll re-add that piece of information tomorrow if you fail to respond immediately on my talk page. Thanks! --24.6.103.162 (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

by 24.6.103.162 I meant me. I keep on getting logged out for some reason. So please respond as soon as possible! --haha169 (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being so nice to me. I had already checked it, thank you very much. Unfortunately, your note makes no difference since there is no reference template at the bottom. So please change it accordingly. Thanks!--haha169 (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Famitsureview.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Famitsureview.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hi. When you add a reference, please make sure you use the {{cite web}} template and <ref></ref> before and after it. The Prince (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for uploading Image:Famitsureview.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. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 9 edit summary

Thank you for your help in keeping the WP:DAYS pages free from non-notable events. However I would like to remind you to be civil when you write your edit summaries. Some user do make good faith edits but are unfamiliar with where to properly contribute their entry. Telling them to "crawl back into your holes" is not necessary. Grouf^{(talk • contribs)} 14:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4chan importance

I notice you recently changed the importance of 4chan, saying in the edit summary the it is not "important", although you haven't explained why you believe this is the case. I'd like to direct you to this discussion about the importance so that you may put forward your views on this matter.--Kip Kip 00:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Bombchu1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bombchu1.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. BJBot (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smashboards Advertisement

While I understand what you did, in the future, kindly contact me privately when you have an issue so that I can edit appropriate comments myself. I was making an important point with the second paragraph of my reply, and your edit pretty much destroyed it. Arrowned (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook

How is the fiscal information related to the founding of Facebook? The first paragraph talks about the founding and its history, and then the last sentence talks about the financials of the company? Gary King (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Serebii.net

Hi Wikipedian06! I'm surprised that you don't want Serebii.net to be used in the Pokémon Platinum article. I see nothing wrong with using it to confirm that nintendo.co.jp announced the game on May 15. It is a fan site yes, but a good one, updated almost daily. No, I'm not in any way connected with that site, in case you think that. I just think that the date on which the game was first officially confirmed is notable enough to be mentioned (and sourced). Cheers, Face 12:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits of Twilight Princess

Hello,

Just to let you know, the fact that you've never heard of a particular website is a non-argument. Noone could care less wether you heard of them or not. Game Revolution has been around for twelve years and is therefore one of the longer running game websites. Because of your statements on the talk page, I feel you're not adhering to WP:NPOV. In addition to that, you (maybe inadvertently) removed several footnotes from the article backing the statement that major websites called Twilight Princess the greatest Zelda ever. Per the reasons above, I'm giving you this warning:

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Twilight Princess, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.

Who are you???? Wikipedian06 (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not signing the post above :) Cocytus Antenora (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gamerankings

You seem to be someone who knows their stuff about this. Can you tell me why gamerankings isn't allowing logins/new reviews to be added? It's so infuriating. Thanks in advance. Autonova (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ocarina of Time

You say peacock terms in the reception section? Would you care to fix it yourself before you add the template? Those templates are used only if the problem is big, and one editor may not fix them all himself. If the reception section passed FA criteria (and recently too), I say that the reception section does not have a major issue at all. Fix it yourself, because you are not telling us what the problem is. --haha169 (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Please try and be a little more careful when adding these template. In this context, I think a discussion is needed. The Prince (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might I tell you that I have never played OoT? Don't accuse somebody of fanboyism, simply because I removed your paragraph about criticism. That still belongs in the lead. If you want, you can insert a bit of criticism into the existing reception paragraph in the lead, but criticism does not merit its own paragraph in the lead. Check WP:VG's May Newsletter for a bit more info on VG leads. (And don't give me "that's not a guideline" stuff. Just check it out.) --haha169 (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't attack other editors

You should be familiar with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks

Please try not to do so in the future. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Edit Summaries

Please do not accuse people of being a fanboy, no matter how that may seem. You recently accused one editor of being a fanboy because he/she removed a passage from the reception section concerning some criticism to OoT. Just revert the edit, it is not necessary to call someone a "fanboy", unless they did something extremely stupid. --haha169 (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting references

Please format references according to WP:CITE/ES so other editors don't have to, thanks! Gary King (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Platinum disruption

You are clearly being disruptive to the Pokémon Platinum article by once again redirecting it without discussion. The consensus right now is to not merge, and you are acting quite like a child who has just lost an argument. Please stop. Artichoker[talk] 20:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

Do not redirect Pokémon Platinum to Pokémon Diamond & Pearl! TheLeftorium 20:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not redirect Pokémon Platinum to Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, as consensus has already been reached that this is not what should happen. If you have a problem, discuss it on the talk page, or you may be blocked. 20:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Pokémon Platinum

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pokémon Platinum. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Artichoker[talk] 20:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Summer Olympics

Hi. I saw your edits at said article and I'm afraid you can't just go around deleting chunks of text otherwise other people will just revert you. If you want to change things then its better if you say what needs changing on the talk page and then moderately modify what you what you want changed. Thanks. Gollenaiven (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Facebook. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 07:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic medal image

Images from the IOC are not in the public domain. You can't simply tag them as being PD.. nor can you claim being the original creator of the image, with your {{pd-author}} tag for that image. Regardless, I've deleted the image.

Right now the current image is the only free use or public domain image that presents the Beijing Olympic medals. So we'll have to use those until there are other PD or free use images. --Madchester (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete sections

Hi. Please don't delete information from Wikpedia like you did at He Kexin. The section has proper reliable sources and presents a neutral point of view. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of bold type on medal table

You seem to be an interested party. There is a related discussion in Talk:2008 Summer Olympics medal table#Use of bold type on medal table. -- Tcncv (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"irrelevant" text on United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics

Actually, I think the text you removed is relevant to the article. The sentence could be re-worded, but it definitely pertains to US athletes and their performance during the Olympic games. If the information is well-sourced, I do not see why it cannot remain. --Jh12 (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but your edits are close to pushing a non-American viewpoint on an American article. The article must be given room because it is an article about American records, achievements, and history. The article even uses American spellings. In regards to the media, they are not breaking any IOC convention because there is no official convention. The majority of United States media has ranked by total medals for most of modern Olympic history. The IOC medal tables only began ranking by gold as recently as 1992 [3], and the IOC takes no position on the medal count. [4] You say that we are grasping at straws. But the fact is, the United States did win more medals than any other NOC, it had more athletes win medals than any other NOC, and it is still historically the most successful nation in Olympic history. --Jh12 (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-American statements on talk pages

Messages like this on talk pages are unaccaptable because they are personal attacks on wikipedians from other nations, and talk pages are meant for constructive discussion, not personal opinions. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air Pollution on 2008 Olympic

Your comparison between Beijing and NYC is not scientific. See the discussion page before you put things there. Your work contained factual errors. Shaoquan (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV and SYN

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you.

Please be careful with the tone and wording of your recent edits ([5],[6], [7] etc.) Using peacock terms like "unprecedented" to describe China's recent Olympic performance should be avoided.

Also, please don't introduced personal research per WP:SYN. Your edit makes personal claims that American sources changed their medal ranking system at these Games. This isn't true, according to the WSJ article. You can't make personal observations of ESPN's other medal tables to draw personal conclusions as it's considered original research. Also, it's facetious to think that ESPN was even around a century ago to rank the 1896 medal table. --Madchester (talk) 03:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics

Hi. I saw your repeated blanket reverts at said article and I'm afraid you can't just go around deleting or re-adding chunks of text which have been deleted after having been subject to discussion, otherwise other people will just revert you. If you want to change things then its better if you say what needs changing on the talk page and then moderately modify what you what you want changed.

If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thanks. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post in the Discussion Page Before You Make Changes.....

...to the Controversy and Concerns for 2008 Summer Olympics.

As I said many times, your comparison was not scientific and you took the report out of context. you also do not understand science sufficiently to distinguish the difference between microgram and milligram. Stop ruining posting scientific arguments if you do not understand the science. Shaoquan (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guo Jingjing

Could I ask you to respect our policies on reliable sources. Furthermore there is no need to use inflammatory edit summaries and label everything you do not like as anti-Chinese and propaganda. Novidmarana (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The additions to Guo Jingjing seem to be in order. The source is good, and has quotes from the Chinese team doctor stating the fact. It is not just a Chinese thing, it is all divers. This does not from Guo at all. If she can truly not see the board, it makes her diving even more impressive. --DanteAgusta (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic medal table

Would you please be careful with your edits to the above article as some of them have been very non-NPOV. It is important that this article gives a fair and balaced overview of the different ranking systems as a lot of pages where we've had disputes over the system we use here at wikipedia now link to it for explaination. Thanks, Basement12 (T.C) 11:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please stop what is effectively edit warring at this page. Some of the sources you keep adding do not show what you claim they do. Instead of continuing to add them pehaps you should discuss the changes you propose on the talk page. Thankyou Basement12 (T.C) 13:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of stripped Olympic medals

Could you please stop adding false information to this article? You have repatedly added a count of the countries with the most medals stripped. Neither are the numbers you give correct, nor is there any factual accuracy in this statement as athleths and not countries win gold medals. But looking at your talk page it is apparent that so far you are oblivious to warnings. Novidmarana (talk) 05:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United States. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Novidmarana (talk) 07:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

At least you got the numbers right this time, well almost, as Russia lost 8 medals, but I guess counting from 1 to 7 is easier than counting from 1 to 8. Anyway, given your track record her on Wikipedia I have a hard time assuming good faith, but if a table says that it is incomplete, that it presumably is. And conversely to what you said I did not delete "your" paragraph on Rick Delmonte, but added the year the medal was recognized by the USOC. But what I am saying, there are not many reasons to assume good faith. Novidmarana (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gleeock

A tag has been placed on Gleeock, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jordan Timmins (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum merge

As you do not have a clear consensus to merge the page, it is improper to do so. I've taken the changes you made during the merge into the article at Pokémon Platinum.

Anyway, do not remerge the article as you will be violating WP:3RR and WP:CONSENSUS.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He Kexin

Please don't make POV attacks in an article. Thank you, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 03:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your second POV attack in a day. The shame of it is, that viewpoint actually might be valid (to temper the views expressed in American sources), but you made up things that were not in the article and you stretched the article in such a way as to make a vitriolic attack in the article instead of trying to be constructive. You are generally a productive contributor so I don't want to cause a fight with you over just a few edits, but if you continue doing this I will have to report you for administrator intervention. Thank you, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 07:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the amount of warnings on this talk page and the complete lack of response to these warning, and given the disruptive, nationalist editing on anything China-related I would not call this editor productive. Novidmarana (talk) 04:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The score of Ocarina of Time

Hi, I read your comments on Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. You wrote, "Cubed3 changed its score for this game from a 9.9 to a 9.0 due to a new rounding system, causing Grand Theft Auto IV to be listed #1 on GameRankings. The GameRankings editor noted that dozens of angry readers emailed him about how it was an outrage for sites to change their scores years after publishing their original reviews. He then arbitrarily set a policy that only original scores could count on the site". After I read this I got interested and researched and found a very important fact. This is the reviews section of RPGamer's Ocarina of Time page. You see two Official Staff Reviews and one Unofficial Staff Review. Game Rankings take the two Official Staff Reviews as a score of 5 out of 5. This is an archived page of RPGamer's Ocarina of Time page. The Feb 08, 1999 page have a review section, and you see the review is by Ryan Amos, and the score is 8.5. On The Jun 06, 2002 page, the second review appeared. The review was written 3 years after the first review was published. It’s pretty much obvious that the first score by Ryan Amos is the original score. According to game rankings’ policy, the score of 8.5 by Ryan Amos should be taken as RPGamer's score. How do you think?--Eisai Dekisugi (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not yet got a reply from him. First, I send a message to him from my email address of yahoo.com, but got a failure notice that said "Mail server for "gamespot.com" unreachable for too long". Then I send a message from my email address of mail.com on 30 November. It may be that he has not yet read my email, or he read it but is thinking it over, or because I emailed him from a free email address, which I have only, my email was regarded as a spam or something. If I do not get a reply till 5 December, I want to ask you to email him instead.--Eisai Dekisugi (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 4chan. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Prodego ^talk 02:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Please do not merely put the template on the page, you also have to create a deletion discussion page as outlined at WP:AFD. Thanks, — neuro^(talk) 03:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation in File:PhelpsBong.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on File:PhelpsBong.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because File:PhelpsBong.jpg is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting File:PhelpsBong.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nominations

Please see Wikipedia:Afd for the correct way to nominate pages for deletion. I42 (talk) 08:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

Please do not make major editorial decisions, as you did with this edit to the Twitter articles without prior discussion with other editors. As far as I can see you have no affiliation to the article or any of the WikiProjects for whom you edited the templates. You can't simply say something is unimportant because it's non-profit. Any talkback/discussion, please talk to me. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 21:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

As I said above, this is not your judgement. Please do not use personal conviction to motivate your edits. In the world of blogging, Twitter is of top quality. Perhaps not in your world, but that's not what the WikiProject boxes imply at all. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

Your recent edit to the page Game Freak appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any other tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. -sesuPRIME 22:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please update your status with WP:VG

Dear WikiProject Video games member,

You are receiving this message because you have either Category:WikiProject Video games members or {{User WPVG}} somewhere in your userspace and you have edited Wikipedia in recent months.

The Video games project has created a member list to provide a clearer picture of its active membership.

All members have currently been placed in the "Inactive" section by default. Please remove your username from the "Inactive" listing and place it under the "Active" listing if you plan on regularly:

Editing video game-related pages in the Article namespace
Participating in video game-related discussions in the Project namespace (WT:VG, WP:AfD, WP:GAN, etc.)

Ideally, members are encouraged to do both, but either one meets our criteria of inclusion. Members still listed inactive at the beginning of November 2009 may be removed. You may re-add yourself to the active list at any time. Thank you for your help, and we look forward to working with you.

—WikiProject Video games (delivery by xenobot 03:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Deified Submarine Palace

Hello, I would like to inform you that I have placed Deified Submarine Palace up for deletion, as it is not an official Touhou Project game, and has no connection to Team Shanghai Alice or ZUN, as there is no mention of this game on ZUN's blog.--十八 03:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to use that enthusiasm to write for actual Touhou games like Undefined Fantastic Object or Touhou Hisōtensoku. Thanks. _dk (talk) 09:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Deified Submarine Palace

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Deified Submarine Palace, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Touhou13.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Touhou13.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 04:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 04:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales related edits

Please don't troll.--Kubigula (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, trolls will be blocked, LOL!--69.114.165.104 (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've indefblocked this account for vandalism and BLP violations. If it was ever used for anything constructive, and another admin wants to reduce the block, please feel free. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another gentle ping from WP:VG

Dear Wikipedian06,

You are receiving this message because either [[Category:WikiProject Video games members]] or {{User WPVG}} is somewhere in your userspace, and you are currently listed in the "Unknown" section on the project's member list.

The member list is meant to provide a clearer picture of active membership. It is recommended that you update your status if you plan to regularly:

Edit video game-related pages in the Article namespace
Participate in video game-related discussions in the Project namespace (WT:VG, WP:AfD, WP:GAN, etc.)

Members listed in the "Unknown" section will be removed from the membership list and category at the end of January 2010. You may re-add yourself to the active list at any time. Thank you for your help, and we look forward to working with you.

Sincerely, the Video Games WikiProject (delivery by xenobot 22:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Tp.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tp.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Vii for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vii 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/Vii 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.

ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]