Click here to leave a message.

25 April 2024
In the media: Censorship and wikiwashing looming over RuWiki, edit wars over San Francisco politics and another wikirace on live TV News and notes: A sigh of relief for open access as Italy makes a slight U-turn on their cultural heritage reproduction law WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2023 in Toronto recap WikiProject report: WikiProject Newspapers (Not WP:NOTNEWS) Recent research: New survey of over 100,000 Wikipedia users Traffic report: O.J., cricket and a three body problem
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

I didnt add that much to his article about his faith other than this edit Controversy: "Many of Sizzla's songs contain anti-gay lyrics."→"Multiple songs contain anti-gay lyrics, as followers of the Rastafarian Movement oppose homosexuality". Looking back at the article I can see that more stuff was added to it about his religion. I added the Judgement Yard stuff because its his yard :D. I'll continue to edit/add/improve it and hope you do the same! Its always good to learn something new about Sizzla! Freecharlesgrace ( talk) 01:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply

It's been a while since I replied to your query on the rickshaw image talk page... Maybe you've read it, but if not, you might be interested to follow the link to the article on hand-coloured photographs. Ciao! Pinkville ( talk) 14:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I have nominated Doomed (film), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doomed (film). 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 04:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Your request has been performed and a userbox for Rastafarians has been created. Please let me know if there are any problems or if there is anything else I can do. Adam McCormick ( talk) 14:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the creation! Big improvement, many thanks. smooth0⁷0₇ ( talk) 23:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Your very welcome! Adam McCormick ( talk) 23:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Smooth0707,

You made a few errors in your creation of your PPR nomination. I have fixed them up for you - see here and here. Please read the instructions carefully - if you're unsure I can try to help out. Thanks for your contribution. -- jjron ( talk) 09:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply

The Critter was about ¾inch long. It does not seem to be fully grown. Thanks in advance for your help!!!

Wyatt 915 ? 03:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Cesarian the moment of birth3.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 04:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I notice you recently added a picture to the Pink Floyd article, and had some questions about its validity, which I asked about here:

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#New picture in article (Pink Floyd pig)

It seems my question has been answered and resolved for the moment (and it turns out I misunderstood the caption; my apologies) but you may want to check if something still needs to be done about the licensing. (I'm also notifying User:Yarl who I think uploaded it, and it's really more of his concern, but I thought you should know.) -- A Knight Who Says Ni ( talk) 21:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

The pig is from the Spanish wiki, here, also a featured article, and it has been checked for validity. smooth0⁷0₇ ( talk) 13:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Like I said, it looks like we don't need to do anything. But to explain it further... User:Tombomp noticed a problem with the copyright designation. The presumed author of the picture, using the name janusz I on Flickr, and User:Yarl on WP, originally loaded it to Flickr and declared it to be copyright free, then loaded it to WP Commons, which can only be done with uncopyrighted pictures. The uploading instructions say that if a picture is copyrighted, it can't be loaded to Commons, but users can get around this by uploading directly to WP. That was not done in this instance. After the picture was uploaded to Commons, the author apparently changed his mind, and slapped a copyright on it at Flickr. The problem for the author is that his picture may not be protected. Someone could rip it off and say that the copyright tag isn't valid, because the author also declared it copyright free by the act of uploading it to Commons. So the author isn't doing himself any favours by declaring it copyright free in one place, and saying it has a copyright in another. Since it's doubtful anyone is going to challenge the picture's residence on Commons at this time, it's not an urgent problem, but I thought it would be a courtesy to let the author know his copyright declaration has a loophole. And I thought I'd let you know, as the person who inserted it in an article, since the picture could disappear from Commons in future if someone notices the problem a second time, and the author is no longer around to fix it. Sorry for the long explanation. I don't know much about copyrights myself; the above is my interpretation of what I read from the discussion. -- A Knight Who Says Ni ( talk) 15:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply

When you move an article, there's a box you can check to move the talk page too. Clarityfiend ( talk) 02:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Do you mind telling me what you are doing? Cut and paste moves are frowned upon. Alientraveller ( talk) 15:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I apologize for the edit summary thing; I was in copy edit mode. To put it short, the war dog article is overly long for its subject matter; there's not really a need to summarize the domestication of dogs when you can hop on over to the main article about dogs. Some of the other stuff is non sequitur, seemingly stuffed in there to make the article longer than it needs to be. I'll do it right this time. ClockwerkMao ( talk) 15:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey smooth, I was going though FPC and I saw that the coca cola logo was still pending on the restoration. I wanted to know if you have heard from anyone that is willing to restore it. If you have not, I'll try my hand at it later today until I am finished. The nomination has been suspended for over five days and would like it to be concluded soon. victorrocha ( talk) 06:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Done. Check the FPC page. victorrocha ( talk) 18:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock lifted. GB T/ C 21:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply Request handled by: GB T/ C 21:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

At least, I think so...I don't think I've ever lifted an autoblock before...please make a test edit to the sanbox just to be sure. _GB ^{T/ C} 21:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Image_workshop#Coca_cola_advertisement

I added two pictures to the page and please see them. Contact me for more pics. 5dsddddd ( talk) 19:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC) =D Im in a rush reply

Part of the problem I suppose here is that the definition of consensus seems to be incredibly vague. I understand the whole not voting thing but at the same time, there was a significant number of people who supported vs those who opposed. Who determines where the tipping point is? -- Hetar 21:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Put my article on Kumite (tournamnet) back on the page EXACTLY where it was, EXACTLY how it was written. Dickclarkfan1 ( talk) 21:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey, just as a head up, I fixed this close. Two things: The templates {{ Afd top}} and {{ Afd bottom}} should always be substituted by inserting them like this: {{subst:Afd top}}. The second: by convention, the {{ Afd top}} template is applied above the heading for the AfD. There is a howto for non-administrators closing afd's at Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. Hope this helps! Protonk ( talk) 15:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I tried to update the 2001 Ohio State Football to meet the format of the others. Let me know if you have any comments or suggestions. Thanks for the advice. Evanpickford ( talk) 19:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, I got your message. Sorry, I thought I'd followed all the appropriate guidelines for uploading images for peer review. Obviously I must have missed something out. I set up a new sub folder then typed into the text box, but then couldn't see any upload facility for the picture, so I uploaded the picture to photbucket.com and pasted the link in. I would really like to put this picture in front of my peers (the picture of the steam train) as I am very proud of it. Can you tell me what I need to do next time to upload the picture to the Peer Review area correctly?

Many thanks Steven Whateley stevenw@blueyonder.co.uk Stevenw888 ( talk) 19:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:The Assassination of President Lincoln - Currier and Ives 2.png, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. jjron ( talk) 09:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

When nominating an article for speedy deletion, can you please explicitly note that in your edit summaries, and in summaries for immediately subsequent edits to the same article? Thanks, Andjam ( talk) 08:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't see a purpose of using edit summaries when tagging an article that I expect to be deleted a few hours later. smooth0⁷0₇ ( talk) 14:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Regarding the page Jim Smitts, which you tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "vandalism", I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This page does not qualify for speedy deletion because I am not convinced that it is vandalism; better to let the PROD expire. If you still want the page to be deleted, please consider tagging it with a speedy deletion template which does apply, redirecting it to another page, or using the WP:PROD process. Thanks! Stifle ( talk) 12:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

POV. Per red link above, the end result was the same. Smooth0707 ( talk · contribs)

Please join the discussion at Talk:Bucknell University regarding the edit you reverted. Thanks! -- ElKevbo ( talk) 18:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply

You posted a question to the Talk page on the Brazilian wandering spider about their diet. I agree that this would be good info to add to the article, but I don't have a source for what they eat in the wild. Most spiders will eat anything small that they can catch.
This page on keeping them in captivity http://www.petbugs.com/caresheets/P-fera.html says:
"Spiderlings eat flightless fruit flies, and pinhead crickets. Adults eat crickets, other large insects, small lizards, and pinkie mice." ("Pinkie mice" are baby mice.) -- 201.53.7.16 ( talk) 23:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The bot condensed an external link to Amazon.com on Henry and Mudge, therefore altering the destination page. See here. smooth0⁷0₇ ( talk) 18:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Ah! Thanks for that Smooth. It's an interesting little bug in my bot. In some situations (where the search term is plain ASCII, or can be translated to ISO-Latin-1) I could get away with removing the encoding term. It's not, as you've noticed, safe in the general case, so I've remove it for now. Cheers, CmdrObot ( talk) 00:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your support. Re: the original and alternate nominations, neither is desaturated. In the first I adjusted the histogram and color balance manually, and in the second I mainly let the software make automated choices. The original nom. actually leans slightly toward magenta; it seemed warmer that way. Durova ^Charge! 00:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Please check the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, the image need a non-free use rationale, in writing, on the image page for each article it's to be used in. Currently it only have a (very very weak) rationale for the use in the Ronald McDonald aricle, but I agree that using it there is acceptable as visual identification of the article subject. However IMHO there is no defensible rationale for using it in the McDonalds article itslef. There is simply no commentary on the Ronald character or his appearance in that article and so no possible justification needing to use this non-free image to improve the readers understanding of that article. The article itself point readers to the Ronald McDonald article for more info, where I have no problem with the image beeing used. -- Sherool (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

I reverted your recent change to the Ambigram page. Because those two ambigrams by Doug are famous ones, I think they should be cited as his. It's significant.

Since you have an interest in ambigrams, I would love to have you weigh in on some issues in the Talk:Ambigram page, particularly the first two sections (Cleanup and Proposed logos) and the last two sections (Recently Deleted Content and ABBA). Thanks.

RoyLeban ( talk) 21:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Regarding Dan Schlund. If it sounds like an advertisement then lets change it to the proper verbage appropriate for Wikipedia. Do not forward it to Jet Pack because I do not fly a Jet Pack. It is a Rocketbelt. Sometimes it is refered to as a Jet Pack incorrectly. This is a biography of me and not just a "Jet Pack" thing. Do not take it upon yourself to determine for me where my name brings me. Thank you!

Instead of putting all the energy of forwarding my name to another page, if it bothers you so much, why don't you put in the time to author it properly. This is not an articles about people notable only for one event. More people have walked on the moon than flew the Rocketbelt (not a jet pack!). It is not designed to be an advertisement because the only people looking for my name will be those wanting to know more about me from the Rocketbelt, Stuntwork, Motivational Speaking or Pyrotechnics. These people may be interested in a article about me and not "Jet Packs". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.82.95 ( talk) 16:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The decision to delete the article Dan Schlund is now being reviewed. You have been sent this message because you have previously been involved in the AfD discussion(s) concerning this article. If you are interested in the review discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 3. Thank you. Esasus ( talk) 15:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:The Assassination of President Lincoln - Currier and Ives 2.png is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 14, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-04-14. howcheng { chat} 23:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC) reply

This merge template is out of line and I have removed it. Contrary to what you say, "we don't give these teams seperate articles. not appropriate", there are about 80 teams this season with articles (see Category:2008-09_NCAA_Division_I_men's_basketball_season) and Louisville's page is as notable as any of them. You're welcome to start a mass AfD for these pages but I don't think it'll get you far. Oren0 ( talk) 04:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for supporting file:Midnight at the glassworks2.jpg at W:FPC. There was some concern about the contrast in the restored image (i.e., that there was too much of it). I made an alternative which all things considered I prefer too. Could I bother you to ask for a support alternative at Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Midnight_at_the_glassworks? Thanks again! -- Michel Vuijlsteke ( talk) 20:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I asked this on the talk page but I may as well just ask you here. What in Bonded by Blood (poster) are you questioning the truthfulness of? Wasted Oompa-Loompa ( talk) 16:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC) reply

OK. Would you object to me removing "priceless" from the infobox and then removing the hoax tag? I would just go ahead and do it without asking, but I can't comprehend what made you place the hoax tag rather than simply removing the offending statment. Also, if you tag artciles as hoaxes in the future, please expalin on the talk page why you do so, or at the very least use an edit summary to explain why. Wasted Oompa-Loompa ( talk) 19:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply

So do you object to me removing the hoax tag or not? Wasted Oompa-Loompa ( talk) 19:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks You're probably right; this is a stupid mistake that I've made several times before. Do you think there is ever an occasion to delete a song article? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 00:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Redirecting I can do it in a few hours, but I've got to catch a bus soon. I'll probably get it done in short order and withdraw the AfDs. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 00:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Do not continue to tag Jamaican singers as homophobic. The topic has been more than extensively covered in their talk pages and appropriate articles (and far overblown). Are you going to tag every person on Wikipedia with strict religious morals as homophobic? No - do not stereotype Jamaican musicians. smooth0⁷0₇ ( talk) 01:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

We've had another discussion, at Category talk:Homophobia. Since the Stop Murder Music campaign, these artists have become visibly highlighted for their homophobic lyrics, including those lyrics which call for the killing of LGBT people. And we've come to a fairly good consensus at Category:Homophobia over what can be categorized as such as. And yes, it includes many religious people who use religious excuses to justify this. And yes, it even includes Leviticus 18 as it's one of the most widely invoked justifications for homophobia. Category:Homophobia has a FAQ in the works of what constitutes homophobia, based on the consensus principles of two independent sources—the European Union and the Yogyakarta Principles. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 03:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

One thing that was reviewed extensively in the discussion, is that virtually no one applicable as homophobic or associated with homophobic violence wants to be thought of as such. Even the Ku Klux Klan denies being racist or homophobic. Homophobia is measured not only in ones words and works, but also in ones effects and visibility. Anita Bryant may claim she's not homophobic (at least anymore), but she's still heavily associated with homophobia. There are some major world religious leaders and politicians in the category as well. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 03:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't care for things like revert wars. I strongly suggest you discuss the topic in Category talk:Homophobia where we've been discussing this in depth for quite some time. A consensus decision can deal with this. I'm trying to edit in good faith of what I understand to be the consensus rules-of-thumb formed there. Care to join the discussion? - Gilgamesh ( talk) 03:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Wait, a "consensus" was reached over at Category:Homophobia by members of WP:LGBT? Wow, big surpise there {sarcasm}. Not one of these artists exhibits what I deem an "irrational fear," that is the point you seem to be missing. Quite rational IMO. I can't speak to the other bios b/c I am not involved in editing them. smooth0⁷0₇ ( talk) 13:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I have reservations about your tone. We discussed the effects of homophobia, and came to a consensus that it doesn't have to be irrational to be homophobic in association, especially when the effects can be so destructive to rights and dignity of LGBT people. And I don't know if any of us were members of WP:LGBT or not. I'm not a member of it. We were discussing the applicability of the category. Please involve yourself in the discussion and the consensus process there, and without assailing the backgrounds and associations of the other editors and without dismissing the credentials of the category out of hand. I do concede that, as a gay man, I cannot reach a full POV on the issue by myself, which is part of why we have the Wikipedia consensus process. It's better to contrast different editors together than to approach everything alone. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 21:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

There is a discussion going on there. Please participate, as it involves the category you dispute using. Then you will have a say in how the category is used and whether it applies to some or all of the articles in question. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 01:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I've sent this article, which you prodded, to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jam boy. I'm not pushing for it to be kept, I just think there's a chance someone might be able to prove it isn't a hoax. Declan Clam ( talk) 04:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the comment on the photo. A couple of people edited after I put it there, so I went to check on it, and found the previous photo up top, with the Jamaican flag in the infobox (which is against WP policy on the en.Wikipedia WP:MOSFLAG).. it was all back to before I touched it, so I reverted a few additions and left a note on the talk page. There are allegations of homophobia, and anti- homosexual teachings in his songs, and a source saying he advocates murder of gays. They can not be removed, as long as a reliable reference was provided to back up that section of text. (WP:BLP) At this point, because there's so little else about him in the article, it looks like people are just against him. The way to counteract negative comments, is to dig deep into that fat pile of references in the "external references section", and add more interesting and informative text, including maybe quotes or sources that say that assertion isn't correct. Trust me: I worked on the Cat Stevens article, who was quoted by several papers as advocating the murder of Salman Rushdie, who he "then believed was blaspheming Islam. There are so many sources-- it's a grand opportunity for someone like yourself to truly make this article shine. I've got too many editing projects right now, but would be willing to help give advice, copyediting, whatever.-- Leahtwosaints ( talk) 22:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC) reply

You reverted an edit on Talk:Busty Heart using Twinkle calling it vandalism. The edit was clearly not vandalism and should not have been rolled back using Twinkle. The OTRS ticket is valid and the edit was made in response to that ticket. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 18:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Because you've contributed to FPC either recently or in the past, I'm letting you know about the above poll on the basis of which we may develop proposals to change our procedures and criteria. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 22:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello, is there some assertion of significance I'm not seeing? All that's here is a plot summary, with no sourcing and no real world significance. I see no reason why it should not have been prodded. Dloh cierekim 21:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You should not remove hangon tags from a page, like you did with this unless you are removing the speedy tag as well. The hangon tag is there to tell any reviewing administrator that the page creator disagrees with the speedy and whether you agree with the reasoning given for adding the hangon tag is irrelevant. I'd also suggest you assume good faith. There is definitely a case to be made for Bounty Killers being a redirect to Bounty hunters (even if you disagree with it) so using terms like "outrageous" is not helpful. I'd also suggest that a more civil attitude would be more productive - in particular your use of capital letters appears to be particularly winding people up. Finally under the commonly accepted bold, revert, discuss cycle the other user did nothing wrong in moving the article, like you've done nothing wrong in asking for it to be reverted. This is intended as advice to try to stop this getting any more out of hand and I hope you take it as such. Dpmuk ( talk) 13:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I see that you removed a {{ hang on}} tag from Bounty Killer. Please do not remove hang on tags unless you also remove the corresponding speedy deletion tag. The speedy deletion was contested, and it is not constructive to try to hide the fact, whether you agree or disagree with the person who contested it. JamesBWatson ( talk) 13:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC) So someone makes an egregious edit, moves a page...and as he protests the CFD I have to sit and wait for the page to be moved back? It isn't constructive to jump pages either. smooth0⁷0₇ ( talk) 19:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC) reply

According to this admin [1] and to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), lowercase bounty killer should go to the bounty hunter, uppercase to the musician. I've done that now.

If you still don't approve, raise the issue at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, or respond to the suggestion on the article talk page. And try not to lose your temper this time. BillMasen ( talk) 17:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC) reply

When you stop making those kind of edits, I will stop losing my temper. Next time, raise the issue on the talk page, or suggest a hatnote before moving pages (especially ones I watch...). smooth0⁷0₇ ( talk) 19:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC) reply

You're the only one who thinks I did anything wrong, nor will it be me who suffers the consequences the next time you lose your rag. Read WP:BRD. That's all that needs to be said on the matter. BillMasen ( talk) 19:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Based on this, you might be interested in this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bucknell University Conservatives Club (2nd nomination). -- GrapedApe ( talk) 12:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC) reply

You have been adding the same unsourced material in the Majek Fashek article. Wikipedia's Policy of Verifiability is very clear on this issue: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Repeatedly adding the same unsourced material into a BLP article, ordering other editors to get the required reference themselves (as you did in this edit summary), and then placing a "Citation needed" template on the unsourced material is disruptive behaviour. I would therefore like to ask you to please provide a reliable source for your addition. If you do not provide a reliable source, and continue to add unsourced material into the BLP article, you will be reported to the Administrator's board. Thank you. Amsaim ( talk) 21:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Haha, is that a threat or something? Report me all you want buddy. I am very familiar with Wikipedia policy; having been an editor for much longer than yourself. Rather than revert edits, and remove knowledge from Wikipedia, try to find a source to help, or take it on good faith, as what reason would I possibly have to add ridiculous nuggets of false information about Majek Fashek? I always thought Wikipedia was the sum of human knowledge, and dealing with such obscure artists like him, you're going to have a hard time finding coverage in online sources. I'd personally see Wikipedia as a source of dubious reference, hence the citation needed, then lacking the info altogether. I will try my best to find a source though. smooth0⁷0₇ ( talk) 02:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Ten tigers cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 00:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Ras Benjih/ ^RasTalk 05:31, 17 August 2015 (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) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkl talk 09:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply