A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Minimplants 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/Minimplants 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottojas ( talk • contribs) 05:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC) reply

/Archive 1

Thanks for keeping up with him on Andy Sheil. He has been blocked. It's the hard work of editors like you that keep Wikipedia in good shape. Cheers, alphachimp 06:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply

You're perfectly welcome. Deranged bulbasaur 06:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello,

Personally, I do not believe that this page should be deleted. MediaNext was well received when first released, and was more than just a mere 'web-blog' as you describe in the speedy-deletion criteria.

I do think if this page is deleted, it will be a real shame, seeing as it doesn't fit perfectly in with the deletion criteria, making it unjustifiable to get rid of too.

I hope you take this into account.

Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MediaNext" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 01casey ( talk • contribs)

It seems like a defunct website without any assertion of notability in its article. Please read the guidelines at WP:WEB to learn what is needed. Deranged bulbasaur 11:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply

The reason I decided to create a page on MediaNext is because of the several 'review' links on music pages, and MediaNext was in red.

Only trying to help the community, and still don't see what's wrong with the page.

I never said you were doing anything in bad faith. The problem with the page is that it does not assert its notability, which makes it qualify for speedy deletion. Deranged bulbasaur 11:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Okay, sorry about that anyway. Before posting pages in future I will make sure everything fits in with the criteria.

Sorry for any inconvenience.

It's no big problem. I'm sure the community looks forward to your contributions in the future. Deranged bulbasaur 11:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply

My friend, you've just run into a banned editor previously known as User:SummerThunder. He's an effective troll, and if you see him around please report him to WP:AIV, or me if you know I'm online. Thanks for redirecting those pages he created as well, saved me some time. Grand master ka 09:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Very well, I'll do just that. Deranged bulbasaur 09:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply

yeah how long do I have, doc? This is a site that is expanding quickly; it only launched about a month ago. I will expand the article ASAP but now I must sleep because it's about 4:45. I am contesting the speedy delete deal but i can't fix it right now. Will you remove the tag as a measure of good faith, fellow Wikipedian? dephlogisicated 11:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

No, but you can just as easily recreate the article in a more complete form when you get back. Make sure it satisfies WP:WEB next time. Good night. Deranged bulbasaur 11:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

You can create a user subpage to save the draft in, if you need it. Deranged bulbasaur 11:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Noticed your pokemon username and decided to drop by and say hi. :) - WarthogDemon

Well, thanks. Warm greetings to you in return. Deranged bulbasaur 01:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• Dear deranged bulbasaur: Thank you for your comment, but I didn't remove a tag. I nominated Cybermysophobia for deletion using TW by a non-speedy process before you nominated it using a speedy process. Please remove the comment from my talk page. Thank you. -- Drtillberg 01:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I think you're confused. You created an article whose only content was a PROD template, so I marked it as empty. An article that has been marked for non-speedy deletion can still be marked for speedy deletion as well. As for your talk page, you're free to remove any messages from there that you have read, however my placement of that message was not in error. Deranged bulbasaur 01:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• I'm sure you mean well, but you said in your earlier comment that I removed your tag. I did no such thing. I agree there is something confusing about what occurred; my "contributions" show no activity on that deleted page. My understanding of TW is that it checks for existing deletion tags before adding them, although perhaps this is a glitch. And I considered marking the article for speedy deletion but concluded that it was a shade too detailed. I'm not sure about your reticence to remove the warning you added; you should double-check your work. At first blush these messages from you seem downright unfriendly. -- Drtillberg 02:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

It's natural that your contribution history doesn't show it. Contributions to deleted pages (including their creation) are not reflected in one's contribution history. I'm quite sure that there was no mistake on my part, but for all I know, it could have been TW itself misbehaving. Let's just forget about it, ok? If the message on your talk page bothers you, there's nothing preventing its removal. Deranged bulbasaur 02:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

While I am the guide for Cranmer's FAC, I did not refer to Foxe as a puritan. Somebody slipped that in there about a week ago. I didn't think anything of it and did not want to be accused of "over working" the article for ownership, so I left it. The website you cited is amazing and I challenge you to re-write the Foxe article and related ones here at WP. Well done. -- SECisek 10:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately, I don't feel comfortable enough with the topic to do that at this time. That website is rather interesting, so I'll continue to read up on it and I might come around to doing some writing over at John Foxe. Thank you for the complements. It seems you've done some good work yourself at Cranmer's article. Deranged bulbasaur 09:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Cheers. -- SECisek 09:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply

List of U.S. communities with caucasian majority populations was created less than 5 mins ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cato1986 ( talk • contribs)

hi there, i want a good reason why my page is to be deleted, i understand it does look very rough and could be redone but surely there is no reason to delete it. (note: my page i speak of is "KISG" ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieferirvine ( talk • contribs) 20:12, January 13, 2008

I've deleted your userpage again. I can protect it from creation if you really don't want one, just let me know. (Note that this will also prevent you from creating it yourself.) Stifle 09:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply

If you happen to read this, go ahead. I won't bother you on your talk about it. Thanks. deranged bulbasaur 19:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply

As I commented there, you don't need to delete the redir formally, as there's nothing wrong with the page title. All you really need to do is adjust the content accordingly. MSJapan ( talk) 13:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Regarding my misstatement in the recent Tada Station (disambiguation) AfD: You're right, those were both redlinks. I misread the timestamps, to be completely honest -- probably in haste. My apologies. — Quasirandom ( talk) 22:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply

why is wikipedia mad at me/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miami dade county 22 ( talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it's hard to fathom it being mad at you. As far as I'm aware, no editors are mad at you either. Your new page submissions just don't satisfy the wikipedia content criteria. If you read the warnings on your talk page, you'll get a good idea why. deranged bulbasaur 14:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply

why is wikipedia mad at me/ why is my pages being delated please tell me why i dont feel welcome into wiki— Preceding unsigned comment added by Miami dade county 22 ( talk • contribs)

The problem is that none of the articles you've made thus far have been informative. The primary purpose of Wikipedia is to inform the reader in an objective way about various topics of broad interest. Instead of creating an article with only a few words in it that don't form a complete sentence, try creating an article that explains what you're writing about so that people know what to make of it. You'll also want to choose a topic that's notable. deranged bulbasaur 14:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I love your name. Wear it with pride. -- mboverload @ 03:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks. deranged bulbasaur 03:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello,

I thought that this second time, I was creating a page the right way. I created a page called Kaydell:Morgan Bowen where "Kaydell" is my user name. Doesn't this mean that this page is my subpage, and that I can work on it until it is good enough to make it a page of wikipedia.org?

Kaydell ( talk) 06:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply

No, you created it in mainspace (as an article). The way to create a user subpage is to create it with a title like User:Kaydell/subpage_name_here. I can move it if you want. deranged bulbasaur 06:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I went ahead and moved it to User:Kaydell/Morgan Bowen. deranged bulbasaur 06:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I read what you typed here. You said that you couldn't picture a creature that couldn't harm a human, and that a "pathetic creature" like that would be "evolutionarily disadvantaged" to the point where it wouldn't exist. What about pillbugs, and earthworms? Apparently you need to do a little more research before you say stuff that isn't true (just a suggestion).

Americanfreedom ( talk) 06:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply

That's rather an old AFD you've managed to dredge up and remove from its proper context. If you were to read on, you'd see that allergens were being considered dangerous for purposes of this list, and pillbugs, being crustaceans and thus "shellfish," are probably a common allergy if not a common food. I confess that I might have overlooked some examples, but the purpose was to demonstrate the list to be over-broad which I evidently accomplished since it was deleted. I never said examples did not exist, only that it was, perhaps rhetorically, hard for me to think of one at the time of writing. Is this issue anything other than moot? deranged bulbasaur 22:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I went ahead and took your sardonic "suggestion" to do some research, and I happened upon this. I noted in the AFD that some organisms were considered toxic not because of what they themselves do, but because of their association with toxic organisms and gave the example of the cycad and cyanobacteria. A parasite is not exactly a toxin (work with me here) but it seems humans can be at least a paratenic or incidental host for Ascaris suum, at least if that article's citation to a case involving another species in the same genus is to be applied. I guess it's back to the drawing board in search of a totally harmless creature. Maybe my intimation that such examples are hard to come by was not so wide of the mark? deranged bulbasaur 22:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply

You are being contacted because you have in the past participated in the Valued Picture project. The VPC project is suffering from a chronic lack of participation to the point that the project is at an impasse. A discussion is currently taking place about the future of this project and how to revitalize the project and participation. If you're interested in this project or have an idea of how to improve it please stop by and participate in the discussion.

—  raeky T 23:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they effect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take 5 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eXOHLbXwbpfYC1f?Q_DL=e3DsAymc9y4ljrD_eXOHLbXwbpfYC1f_MLRP_cDgjChoiOrl3O1T&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs ( talk) 15:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply