This user may have left Wikipedia. Shii has not edited Wikipedia since July 2015. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Please remove the article about jung myung seok. Some information there is not true. Thank you.

Sorry I missed your question at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/I Ching/archive1 before the bot added the closing template. From my reading of the comments, it seems like there was healthy disagreement about the scope and some of the sourcing, which I think are best resolved outside of the FAC process. More important, it is normal for nominations to be archived when they have run this long without attracting any support for promotion. I would be good to build some capital by reviewing other FACs and making sure any outstanding scope and sourcing issues are resolved before renominating. You are welcome to renominate in two weeks. --Laser brain (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shii: I have a rewrite of Beliefs and Practices for the Soka Gakkai page in my Sandbox [[1]]. If you have time, could you look and it and maybe suggest ways in which it may be unacceptable? It's 100+ words shorter than the current. I finally found an English source for the 5 Guidelines of Faith you had suggested, and included them as a sub-subsection. Everything else is pretty much the same, except for the order in which it's presented. That the SG was once part of Nichiren Shoshu is still there, but moved down so it's not presented as THE most important aspect of SG canon. I changed the order of sub-sections also. Finally, I retained critical statements, but as one part of the subject, rather than the most essential thing about the subject. (If this request is inappropriate, let me know.) Thanks.--Daveler16 (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daveler16 FWIW this looks perfectly good to me. Shii (tock) 08:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I made a few more changes today to eliminate typos and confusing syntax. --Daveler16 (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shii may approve, but I don't, and I don't consider the decontextualization to be policy compliant, because SG is a Nichiren-derivative movement. I will consider it disruptive if you post that, and ArbCom is on the horizon if I have to deal with your advocacy again.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again there is a strong historicism going on here. We already have a History section in the article that makes SG's origins clear. Shii (tock) 20:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I move this conversation to the Talk Page? Seems to be it has taken a turn other editors might want to get in on. --Daveler16 (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do so... Shii (tock) 17:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Japan Communist Party flag.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) 23:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Providence (religious movement). Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Filed by GIOSCali, but GIOSCali did not send out notifications Jim1138 (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shii, yes sorry forgot to drop the notifiation, but I put in a request at the dispute resolution noticeboard to help our discussions on the Providence page reach a compromise.

GIOSCali (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shii, do you have a source for your statement on DR/N Reliable secondary sources attest that this group purposefully misleads outsiders about its true nature.? If so, it might be good to add it to your statement on DR/N. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Montanabw^(talk) 01:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Talk:Separation of church and state#Japan. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I am advised.....Since this article was deleted after the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rochelle Gadd, if you think it should be restored you should first contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user Shii (talk). He may be willing to restore the article to a draft page where you can work on it. When you have added references, check with him before restoring it to the main encyclopedia; if he does not agree, you can appeal at WP:Deletion review. JohnCD.......

I believe this page should be reinstated as Rochelle Gadd is a professional actress with many credits to her name (I will locate references). Please let me know what you suggest. Many thanks Chrispanto (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chrispanto: The page is now available to you in your userspace, at User:Chrispanto/Rochelle Gadd. Please add references, etc. or else it will be deleted again. Shii (tock) 21:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thank you. I have added a few referenves, but as I am new to this, could you please check and tell me if I am doing this correctly or advise where I am going wrong? Many thanks Chrispanto (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chrispanto: None of your references are acceptable. However, I am not able to provide guidance on this subject; please use Wikipedia:Teahouse or ask another admin. Thanks Shii (tock) 12:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider unprotecting Shinto? It has been indefinitely semi-protected for almost six years, excepting the pending changes trial, and the editor who it was intended to benefit (Takashi Ueki) has not edited in over five years. Thanks, Conifer (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conifer - I expect this will bring nothing but the horde of POV editors that come to articles like Religion, but nevertheless... let's give it a shot. Shii (tock) 08:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not edited as the article is largely complete, and I have experts in the field including several Shinto priests monitoring for needed changes. Not much changes in a 2500 year old religion. Shii Takashi Ueki (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. TL22 (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering if my response to your question at the FAC was satisfactory?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The first KEEP vote was from GangofOne who said keep because he had "200,000 subscribers" on YouTube. Not a valid argument to keep something. He did not post again in the AFD.
• Johan65 posted KEEP saying the guy was the best in the world at explaining electronics, no other reason given. He did not post anywhere else in the AFD.
• Paul (User:Lpgeffen) posted just once also, saying "Valuable, public-minded blogger with a large following" as his only reason for wanting to keep the article.
• So you have three KEEP votes you can disqualify. A single magazine interview was found for the guy, plus a book published by an unknown writer with interviews with him and other YouTube people. Almost all of those who said KEEP did so before even these were found, so their arguments were just the invalid "I like it" instead of any claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability requirements. Two(Jeb and МандичкаYO) argued these two sources were enough, while four(Dream Focus, LaMona, MAsem, and Ronz) said they were not and gave valid reasons why the book didn't count towards notability. Dream Focus 14:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My impression of the discussion was that Jeh's arguments were convincing to МандичкаYO and that he provided an extended justification for his use of sources -- although I see that there is certainly room to doubt whether the sources he chose justify a claim of notability. I guess I could change the result to "no consensus" if you'd find that satisfying. Shii (tock) 14:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how four delete and two keep, would end in anything but delete. (The other three keeps as I stated above were invalid). МандичкаYO stated "I think the Q&A in Circuit Cellar (with the mention of his significance in the introduction) is enough to establish notability, combined with other mentions, though I haven't researched the book yet, I'm going on WP:AGF that it exists and was not self-published and he got a chapter." So he didn't evaluate the book or stick around to read the arguments against it being valid. His keep was based on just one article saying how great the guy was, and WP:NOTABILITY says you need more than one reliable source giving significant coverage. Dream Focus 14:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you take time to read through all the arguments, or did you just skim through quickly? Everyone makes mistakes, just don't be too proud to admit it. Dream Focus 14:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I was skimming through the discussion, especially after I checked the article and saw that it had improved from the start of the discussion, and I was working with a preconception that the guy was notable in the first place. Shii (tock) 14:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It didn't improve, it just got two sources added to it, one of them a book most said didn't count towards notability. Dream Focus 15:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • So "two sources added to it" are not an improvement?

May I remind you that it's not a vote; therefore the number of "keeps" vs. "deletes" doesn't matter? The criteria for notability for BLP were met by the interviews in Circuit Cellar and in the book chapter, provided that both are considered reliable sources. Both Dream Focus and Wikimandia said that the magazine article was acceptable.

There was then a claim that the book didn't count, that the publisher appeared to be indiscriminate or the author was too unknown, blah blah blah. However, the book is part of an ongoing series from a well-established publisher, and this book is neither the first nor last in the series, strongly suggesting an ongoing editorial process to develop, edit, and publish books of this sort. It's not our job to second-guess the publisher's decision as to whether the author is credible. If there was evidence that the author was not credible, that would worthy of mention, but no such claim has been made.

The other late arguments, that interviews don't count because they're primary sources, I claim are invalid because the RS criteria is being incorrectly applied. An interview is certainly a primary source for claims made by the interviewee, but we're not using the interview as a source for anything claimed by the interviewee. The interviews do constitute "significant coverage in a non-self-published source" (nobody has claimed that these sources are self-published, nor that a book chapter is insignificant) and therefore count as far as notability of the interview subject is concerned. I made that point in the AFD discussion three days ago and nobody has so much as tried to counter it, but here, DF just repeats the already-countered claim that the book doesn't count, and presents no new reasoning to support that.

Remember, consensus is established not by voting, but when people stop arguing. I note that even here you're not raising any new arguments, nor trying to counter the last "keep" arguments. So the result should stand as "keep".

And btw, DF, the book is not about "him and other YouTube people". It's about important people in the Maker movement. It happens that another person interviewed does post EE-related YouTube videos but that's hardly her primary claim to fame or her reason for being included in the book. (Another attempt by DF at discrediting a source without justification. Clearly he hasn't so much as skimmed the book either.)

The original result should stand for another reason; see below. Jeh (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I call foul. An AFD decision should not be changed after the fact based on discussion on the closing admin's talk page - discussion that no one else was likely aware of until after the decision change! An AFD discussion is supposed to be public, and all arguments should be presented and available for public discussion and counter (and review by the closing admin). Instead DF comes here after the decision, argues his side of the case over again (pretending, of course, that the counters to the later "delete" !votes don't exist) with no opportunity for anyone else to say anything, and Shii modifies his decision in response, writing "I guess I could change the result to "no consensus" if you'd find that satisfying" - how the hell does DF's "satisfaction" suddenly become a criterion? Jeh (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with the outcome of an AFD you are suppose to discuss it with the closing administrator. That's how things are done. There was no counters. There was you claiming the book coverage counted, while four people said it did not. Consensus was clear that the article should be deleted. Dream Focus 19:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"...that's how things are done." That's fine, but the closing admin should not then immediately acede to the complainer without further public discussion. The rest should be argued on the AFD. Jeh (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DF didn't asked me to change my views. I skimmed the discussion and saw your arguments were persuasive to others; but he asked me to read it more closely, and I saw they were not persuasive to everyone, and in fact it's questionable whether a single interview really changes things. The only thing a "no consensus" close does practically is invites people to read the discussion closely if there is another AFD; your arguments will be paid close attention to. Shii (tock) 00:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shii: do you have any idea how long this will take? I have some suggestions for edits but I'm not sure I should bring them up if a review is going on. Catflap said it might take months. Is that the case? Should we continue trying to improve, or wait to see if there are suggestions after the review? Thanks. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Shii. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hi there. I have emailed you a media inquiry about an article I am writing which mentions you. As the article is likely to gain a great deal of attention, may I request that you please give it your most urgent attention?

Vordrak (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shii: I have been trying to trace the origin of this line you added on 9 July 2012 on the page for the song Sukiyaki:

"Rokusuke Ei wrote this song while coming back from a protest against the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan and feeling dejected about the failure of the protest movement, but the lyrics were rendered purposefully generic so that they might refer to any lost love."

The reference you give seems to be to a book of photographs by Tsuneko Sasamoto. Unfortunately, I don't read Japanese. Did she have special knowledge, or is there another source?

All of the other paths I have followed here have led in circles back to this quote.

Thank you in advance for any information you can provide.

Anejr (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anejr: Thanks for calling me out on the source, because I realized I messed up. You can see the actual source I used here: http://d.hatena.ne.jp/jyunku/20120710

The ultimate source is a TV interview with the writer, but it was quoted not in the book of photos linked at the bottom, but in a magazine profile. Sorry for confusion Shii (tock) 22:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shii: Unfortunately, I don't read Japanese. Is this a reasonable rendition of the referenced post?

"This seems to say that Sasamoto Tsuneko, Japan's first female photojournalist, appeared as a guest in the spring of 2012 on a radio program hosted by Rokusuke Ei. The program showcased her new book of photographs of the Showa period. On seeing a photograph of a 1960 demonstration against the ANPO treaty, Ei said that he had been among the demonstrators. The demonstration's leaders advocated "let's walk looking up!" (i.e., the title of the song) when the demonstration ended, and Ei thought of this as a way to keep vain, sad tears from falling. And this was his inspiration for the lyrics of the song." Anejr (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shii, there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chinese_history#Direct_dynastic_histories_citations on the use of Chinese dynastic histories as sources in which you may be interested.  White Whirlwind  咨  17:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Musad'afin. Since you had some involvement with the Musad'afin redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

I appreciate the discussion you put into the debate over the proposed deletion of Flower of Life. You were thoroughly and diligently rational, and challenging against WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I would hope that someone can either locate the desired additional sources, or otherwise find a good home for it. I have a best selling sacred geometry howto book called How to Create Sacred Geometry Mandalas, whose author says that she independently discovered this shape herself, years before discovering Drunvalo and his name of "Flower of Life". And it has a tutorial on it. — Smuckola(talk) 05:46, 5 November 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) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how a wikipedia article i tried to create is now an actual article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GtheLad (talk • contribs) 15:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Anarchyte was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Unreferenced.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of longest running encyclopedias and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Shii, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. Acalamari 12:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Persian Gulf Medal of Honor
	Hello dear Shii|, Hereby Persian Gulf Medal of Honor of Iran has been given you for your special services to wiki, specially your flawless works on AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTAD in Wikipedia. thank you so much The Stray Dog by Sadeq Hedayat 11:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Parti Vert Haïtien has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails to cite sources.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Shii. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "List of longest running encyclopedias".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The old article for the New Religious Movement has been split into several articles. See:

• Christian Gospel Mission
• Jung Myung Seok
• Media Allegations, Criminal Charges, and Conviction of Jung Myung Seok

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fulfilled prophecies 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 PaleoNeonate (talk • contribs) 04:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect P2008. Since you had some involvement with the P2008 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shii (if you're still around). I have removed your unsourced addition per comment at https://teknopedia.ac.id/w/index.php?title=Under_the_Spreading_Chestnut_Tree&type=revision&diff=795014106&oldid=795013552 since no source was provided, and the popular song (eg: the Glenn Miller version, etc) appears more likely to have spread during the US occupation of Japan than a classical piece. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:ArXiv 1994.gif. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 05:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote on the Prescription Act 1832 article that it was hastily written in response to Jeremy Bentham, is there a source for the claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.53.105 (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brad Sucks 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/Brad Sucks 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. Bearcat (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of works with the subtitle "Constancy Rewarded" is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of works with the subtitle "Constancy Rewarded" 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. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has started about wrapper templates of {{Link language}}. You may be interested in participating because you participated in a related previous discussion. E^pi*i batch (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC) (Retro is my main account.)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Moonlightwalks.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

4meter4 (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Madhusudana dasa Babaji requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about 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 "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 deleted 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. Venkat TL (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Krishna das Babaji has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No assertion of notability. Can't find source supporting notability for this religious teacher.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Venkat TL (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jagadananda Goswami 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/Jagadananda Goswami (2nd nomination) 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.

Venkat TL (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yatsuhiro Nakagawa, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yatsuhiro Nakagawa until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anti-Japaneseism, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Japaneseism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article UrbanBaby has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a notable topic--being mentioned, perhaps, in one newspaper article means nothing. The creator has retired so we can't easily ask what the mythical "urban motherhood" might mean.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Wikipedia:Requests for creation has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 14 § Wikipedia:Requests for creation until a consensus is reached. Awesome Aasim 18:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]