Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or sock puppetry.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of DroidAR, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://code.google.com/p/droidar/.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on DroidAR, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
• It appears to be a clear copyright infringement. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

  If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. However, even if you use one of these processes to release copyrighted material to Wikipedia, it still needs to comply with the other policies and guidelines to be eligible for inclusion. If you would like any assistance with this, you can ask a question at the help desk.

• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. smileguy91^{Need to talk?} 20:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Endgame: Ancient Truth, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JBH (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IamM1rv! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Soni (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for message. You can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~~~~. Please add your messages to the bottom of the talk page, or they may be overlooked. I deleted your article because

• it did not provide adequate independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. The fact that Ingress may be notable doesn't make this game notable. In fact I can't even see any claimed facts that might establish notability. You content is just a game summary and spam
• Although you gave three "references" one is to a personal website of someone who can't even spell "trailer" and the other are to a sales site with self-written blurbs as the text
• it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. The only content of your article apart from the game summary was to promote the tie-ins, which are three non-notable ebooks and a vague unreferenced claim about a forthcoming film. The latter needs a ref from Fox verifying the claim. You finish with multiple links to spam sites. Just one link to the main site is acceptable

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't even looked at Ingress. Your text said Niantic Labs, maker of a similar game, Ingress (game) which reached 7 million players in under 3 years via viral marketing and Transmedia storytelling. which seems to suggest that this game is notable because Niantic have make another, possibly notable, game. Notability is not transferable from one game to another, you have to explain, with third-party references, why "Endgame: The Calling" is notable in its own right Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three separate parts:

• The note about the spelling of trailer ... is that an "ad hominem "or are you saying if I can find one spelling error anywhere on the page or the reference linked to that page - the entire wiki entry has to be deleted? One seems rather unbecoming of a wiki personality and the other would disqualify most newspapers and even scientific journals as sources.
• The notable thing ... I'm not sure what is not notable about $500,000 in gold. It feels highly subjective ... example: maybe you are rich enough that you keep $500,000 in gold in every room of your home and thus it is not notable. Of course, you are going to need to cite a reliable source certifying that you have that much in each room.
• The sources. For now ignore the Non-advertising part - I am reading up on this too. How valid are news sources like bloggers in general, versus the ones that call to verify via phone, that have online presences and still send someone to the physical event? Example: The verge, the publicity wing of caesar's palace, wall street journal, new york times, independent folks in the industry. Where is the citation guidelines in separating what makes a professional news company with paid staff? I've read 12 wiki pages on just sources & am still going ... maybe someone needs to rewrite the Wikipedia help guide to make it more salient?

IamM1rv (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)iamM1rv[reply]

• What I'm saying is that it's a carelessly written personal blog rather than a reputable third-party source. I can't see that it's "ad hominem " since I don't know who authored the page and my comment wasn't directed at them
• I'm not sure what is not notable about $500,000 in gold. that is notable, but it doesn't have a reputable third-party source to verify the claim

Basically blogs and social media are rarely if ever acceptable, along with other self-editable or trivial sources. Major newspapers and journals are fine unless they are just reporting an interview in which they just report the interviewee's claims. Websites need to be of verifiable and reputable ownership.

I wasn't watching your page, so just as well you flagged up Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fact needs the ref inline, which wasn't the case in the deleted version Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your recent edit to the talk page of the article on Richard Proenneke at Talk:Richard Proenneke#Death and legacy: [1]. If you look at your edit using this link, you will see that you neglected to sign your comment (with four tildes), so it was signed for you by a bot. Also, you placed your comment at the top of the talk page. New comments are normally added at the end of the talk page unless you are adding a comment to a discussion already started. I moved your comment to the bottom of the talk page. Also, even though you provided a heading, it would be helpful to other editors if you were a bit more specific as to exactly what in the article you are concerned about. You could write something like, "The last sentence of the section Richard Proenneke#Death and legacy reads:

• But unlike that book—in which Keith frequently modified Proenneke's writing style—The Early Years presents Proenneke's journals with minimal or no modification.

I'd be interested to know...

Does anyone know....?

I think a source is needed...

Thanks for your interest in editing! - CorinneSD (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Endgame: The Calling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parallel universe. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tank (gaming), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moba. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits because there are tons of reliable sources to support the statement that Senator Ted Cruz taught law at the Univ of Texas. He states it clearly on his LinkedIn page and on his official Senate page and on his campaign page, which are all reliable sources. However, you seem to have wanted a primary source, which goes against all that Wikipedia works to avoid. However, there is a primary source available, probably others, but just one is enough to dispel your claim that you have found out the big secret of Cruz's life. He is clearly listed in the Univ of TX School of Law catalog for 2006-2008 as an adjunct professor of law. Please review the rumor dispelling citation here: edit adding in the UT Law certification of Cruz's law prof days.--MaverickLittle (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"tons of reliable sources to support the statement" there aren't a ton, but that one link is what I wanted to see - I figured it was compartmentalizing their webpage on the search engine. Thanks{Ping| User:MaverickLittle} IamM1rv (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"tons" is a figure of speech so, of course, it does not apply. But there are more than sufficient reliable sources to support the claim and you should have checked all of the reliable sources that were/are cited in the article before you attempted to create the impression that the claim was dubious, which of course, it never was.--MaverickLittle (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MaverickLittle: Your use of English is incorrect or wrongly presumptive. As I never intended to imply anything - that is simply your incorrect presumption. You should read up on the help files ... WP:GF is where you need to start. I went so far in the talk page as to state, that not only had I looked, the issue was just finding the reference since self-citation is not recommended and the ones I checked went back to the senator pages. As evidenced by the fact that I did not just delete the reference to adjunct professor position from the wiki, but rather added tag for needed information and explained it in the talk pages. IamM1rv (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't need to go anywhere to look up anything. You left the Ted Cruz article with a problem, which I fixed. Enough said.--MaverickLittle (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Endgame: Proving Ground, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alternate reality. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you pause on replacing this for a bit? The two templates are not the same. For example, you just switched the template on the Corrupted Blood page from World of Warcraft to Warcraft universe. However, corrupted blood is not listed on the Warcraft universe template. I'm not sure I agree with replacing these templates like this as a result. There are things specifically related to World of Warcraft. -- ferret (talk) 11:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: Yes, they clearly do duplicate though ... the other option which takes longer is to remove the duplicate from the "World of Warcraft" template...then put it as a sub-template into the main or include both templates on relevant pages.

Certainly, they duplicate a lot of information. Just want to ensure the non-duplicate information is appropriately merged over to Warcraft universe. -- ferret (talk) 11:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret:There's at least 4 links that aren't relevant to the rest of the links in "world of warcraft" navbar, corrupted blood being one of them. It has no bearing on the board games or novels etc. It also has 3 or more links on a few pages where it is relevant. See recommendations on here ...Template_talk:World_of_Warcraft where I broke down the options. Someone else asked me to throw together a warcraft template User:IamM1rv/wow, it's franchise - from there, if you notice the two links at the bottom, these will ensure people can find all pages related - which are not related to the other elements - like the blood & thottbot or warden etc. The same category link method could be used to list all the lesser links that don't belong on the Template:Warcraft Universe IamM1rv (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes should only appear where one of the links in the template turns black when its transcluded on a page (per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL). I've undone a number of your additions of the Blizzard template, given the scope of that template. (The other way to fix such problems in the future is to remove/add links to the template in question, but that's not applicable here.) --Izno (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: You're going to want to read talk pages & talk to the other guy - he did the consolidations & asked me to wait on the individual pages longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamM1rv (talk • contribs)

Just noting for your own edits in the future, regardless of the current situation with Blizzard/WC/WoW in particular. --Izno (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno:I'm reading up on it too, some of the turning black stuff is over my head at this point - was there something specific in of this to keep in mind for my reading? I did make that template navbar you suggested too ... what did you think? User:IamM1rv/wow

Your template seems overcomplicated as a replacement for Template:Warcraft universe and additionally is lacking a number of the links present in T:WCU. --Izno (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno:Can you explain last two things in question? I know the NV:xxx but your t:wcu is not coming up in help search & the article you linked to didn't have a going black thing.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamM1rv (talk • contribs)

Re turning black: An article linked in a navbox should have the navbox on its page, and a template on a page should have the article in its navbox. (See WP:BIDIRECTIONAL.) One of the rules of thumb that I use is "does every link on this template turn black" at least once for the articles in the template.

T:WCU -> "Template:Warcraft universe". It's just plaintext shorthand. --Izno (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also replied on Izno's talk page, but let's keep further discussion at Template_talk:Warcraft universe#Category for 3rd party so as to not need to watch dozens of places. -- ferret (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: yep - step ahead of you here ... been laying out some questions for 30 minutes now in draft mode on the page :)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Frey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Googles. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IamM1rv. I ran across your edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revasi. I just wanted to let you know that Non-English sources are ok to use.

On another note, when you contribute to an Articles for Deletion discussion, it's best to go into more detail that this. You should state clearly why you think the article should be kept (or deleted, as the case may be), based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Howicus: -- Appreciate the input, but it's just as informative as people who are "Delete - for WP:XXX -- IamM1rv (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)" ...it's like people think linking to a guideline automatically explains how are particular piece interacts with that rule. -- IamM1rv (talk) 11:19, 15 April 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) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]