Archives
User talk:Valoem/Welcome User talk:Valoem/To Do List User talk:Valoem/Changes I would like to make User talk:Valoem/Archive1 User talk:Valoem/Archive2 User talk:Valoem/Archive3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter Luger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German. 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) 09:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The content was merged without the unsourced text and unreliable sources. Thanks QuackGuru (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I sorry I do not agree with this merge there are plenty of reliable sources. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You restored unreliable sources and unsourced content. Please read the section below. QuackGuru (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Also thanks for letting me know something I wrote was bold merge., I'll replace again source if needed, but I'm not see anything issues. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't notice any problem with this edit? QuackGuru (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears advert Emilynorelll (talk · contribs) vandalized the article I restored the original version I wrote. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 05:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the spam you accidently restored. QuackGuru (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay we can start a formal merge process. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was a copyright violation by copying text from Wikipedia without attribution. I will undo your edit and do it again. QuackGuru (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Please fix. Thanks. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undo the merge and then it will be fixed or I will undo and redo. QuackGuru (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay done, but please readded the additional sources I added. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will read it shortly without the sources that failed verification and the minor copyright violation and without adding two images. One image is enough for juul. It would be better to add an image of a Pax device. The draft I mentioned will also be added to the page. QuackGuru (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, two picture look to cluttered. I am sure those are reliable sources. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources did not pass V, but I already fixed it. QuackGuru (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones, and can you merge it? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done with merge and expanding page. I fixed the ones in the draft a while ago. QuackGuru (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is actually better and more descriptive. Nice job! Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what they say for my editing at the other vaping pages. Later on there will be fireworks at the other pages. I am patient. If I have to wait a year or two then then is fine with me. QuackGuru (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Electronic cigarette topic area, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

QuackGuru (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

QuackGuru (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved in any of this crap, but now may be a good time to take a break, and have a nice walk or something. TimothyJosephWood 14:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Getting anti-fringe trolled right now. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood: Hey, I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about the person calling me a shill, hard to AGF after that. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. RexxS (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to use this talk feature. I BEG you, PLEASE do NOT put spoilers for "The Dark Tapes" film. You can have a full plot synopsis without spoilers. I am sorry, but people check out WIKI pages BEFORE seeing the film. PLEASE do not include the spoilers, I know for a FACT they look at wiki before watching the film. You will entirely spoil the movie for everyone. I beg you, please revert to my changes or just remove it from wiki. PLEASE. It ruins years of work, spoils the film, I beg you, please revert to my chances without the spoilers. Sorry, I dont know how to sign this. The Dark Tapes was done by three people mostly. The entire strength of the film is not knowing the spoilers. Please, we beg you, switch our wiki to spoiler free, we are not a big studio, people only find the film through word of mouth and often research the film via google and will read wiki before seeing the film. PLEASE switch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HorrorMaster (talk • contribs) 23:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC) 05:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC) Please, I am begging you, you do not HAVE to put up spoilers. I am fully aware that most people do on wiki. 4 years of work and $65,000 of my own money went into this money. The only reason to watch it is for the twists and turns. Give a play by play playout with the spoilers included adds nothing for people who have seen it. PLEASE, PLEASE PLEASE give some consideration to what I asking. Can't you just switch it to what I corrected? I understand you can put spoilers, it does not mean you HAVE to. I wont make a cent on the movie as is, I just want to break-even. PLEASE. Surely wikipedia does not exist to take money from creators of films. This is exactly what the listing does. PLEASE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HorrorMaster (talk • contribs) [reply]

User:HorrorMaster, all the content is unsourced. Why should unsourced content be restored anywhere on Wikipedia? QuackGuru (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@QuackGuru:, There is an exception with plot summary in film, WP:PLOTSUM (all FA film articles have unsourced plot summary and here is the guildline Wikipedia:FILMPLOT, Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary.), however if HorrorMaster actually works for the studio and can prove it I won't revert. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sky is very blue for this case. QuackGuru (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator/writer/producer/director of the film. If you can guide me what to do to prove myself, let me know, or if you need posters and or anything added, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HorrorMaster (talk • contribs) 21:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alec Torelli 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/Alec Torelli 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. Kleuske (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Neckbeard (slang) 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/Neckbeard (slang) 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. Jip Orlando (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Valoem/KnowledgeLake, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valoem/KnowledgeLake and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Valoem/KnowledgeLake 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. Legacypac (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

“Hi, I’m sad to report that I’m not Leon, (I could use some helicopters) just a neophyte wikiperson who seems to have chosen a tricky interest to edit. I removed this section because the language seems biased and doesn’t mention that Tsang and Kirk happen to know each other, that there’s some mystery around where Kirk got so much money from in the first place when he’s known to have lost an awful lot, and why Tsang would be lending money to someone who clearly didn’t need it? Curious. And I haven’t even mentioned the Triads. Also, though sources may exist they hardly amount to the New York Times. Reporting on speculation amounts to tabloid sources in my book, but I’m learning that the process here is down to the shifting sands of individuals’ whims.” Hey ho. we stumble on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royston McGee (talk • contribs) 19:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Royston McGee:, you have not shown a "tricky interest", but an account with the single intention of promoting Leon Tsoukernik and his affiliations. Sources include CardPlayer, HighStakesDB, and PokerNews have written the story the exact way it is written here. I have not found any sources regarding Tsang as being a Triad member nor is there speculation from any sources of Matt Kirk's net worth. If there are sources this is Wikipedia, and you can add them, but they must be reliable. Your argument "why Tsang would be lending money to someone who clearly didn’t need it" is the silliest argument and suggests direct affiliation with subject in question. People don't have cash on hand, at the time Tsoukernik had a good reputation winning multiple awards in poker. High stakes players loan money all the time. In this case it was Tsoukernik who started a credit game, unfortunately sources says he only pays what he wants and not what is owed, unfortunate indeed. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has suggested that an article that you previously created seems identical to the following article: Absolute Beginner. I don't know if that's true since I don't know what the previous article look like. 79.67.85.74 (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Killing_of_Patrick_Harman. Zazpot (talk) 08:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Valoem. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sol Forman".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia 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}}, {{db-draft}}, 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. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 23:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joe's Steaks + Soda Shop 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/Joe's Steaks + Soda Shop 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. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dalessandro's Steaks 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/Dalessandro's Steaks 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. DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a chance to read my comments on Talk:Trenton tomato pie‎ or Talk:Sicilian pizza‎? -Apocheir (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Valoem. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Valoem|<font color="DarkSlateGray">'''Valoem'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Valoem|'''<font color="blue">talk</font>''']]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Valoem|'''<font color="Green">contrib</font>''']]</sup> : Valoem ^{talk contrib}

to

[[User:Valoem|<b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:Valoem|<b style="color: blue;">talk</b>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Valoem|<b style="color: Green;">contrib</b>]]</sup> : Valoem ^{talk contrib}

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomalocaris: Did I fix it? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Valoem/2008 Turkey UFO sightings, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valoem/2008 Turkey UFO sightings and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Valoem/2008 Turkey UFO sightings 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. LuckyLouie (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Valoem/Charlie Redstar, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valoem/Charlie Redstar and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Valoem/Charlie Redstar 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. LuckyLouie (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Valoem/Bonsall UFO, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valoem/Bonsall UFO and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Valoem/Bonsall UFO 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. LuckyLouie (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Valoem/Laredo, Texas UFO crash, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valoem/Laredo, Texas UFO crash and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Valoem/Laredo, Texas UFO crash 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. LuckyLouie (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Valoem/Hopeh Incident, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valoem/Hopeh Incident and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Valoem/Hopeh Incident 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. LuckyLouie (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating the new Pan pizza article! North America1000 21:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Valoem,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

I will probably !vote for deletion. Only one source is cited and it's purely local. A story like this needs to have some evidence of national-level attention (I suspect it will eventually attain that, but we can't use that as reason to keep). Daniel Case (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case:, Thanks for letting me know, sorry I don't have regular access to the internet at this time. I don't know if this changes anything, but she has been covered in national news Inquisitr, Huffington Post, another Huff Post Inquisitr again. She disappeared 2016 and has been receiving continued coverage on a new weekly basis for the entire year. [1], [2], [3]. I am not sure if this defines notability in this instance, I tend to look for test of time or inclusion in documentaries or docudramas, but I wasn't sure. Let me know if this changes anything. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was not suitable for a nac nor does your close suggest you did anything other than vote count. Please revert your close so an admin can do it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd put the DoB back in. If it is unreliable then the article can explain why. Unless there is a better, more accurate, source for it that says differently?

It's really not up to us, as Wikipedia editors, to cast doubt on what someone says about themselves unless there are good sources that do this. Particularly when it is as relatively trivial as a birth date. It really makes little difference to who he is, or what he has (allegedly) done. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you unprodded the above article but didn't leave an edit summary explaining why or address the problems that I noted. I was curious to know why you unprodded the article. I know that it is not mandatory to give an explanation or improve the article when deprodding but it is useful. Cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Dom from Paris (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: Yes I did leave a message in the talk page and posted a message on a Vietnamese editors page I was hoping they would be able to find additional sources since English sources may not exist. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 05:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on User:Valoem/Maiden Media Group, 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, group, product, service, person, or point of view 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 "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. Legacypac (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating the above article. The previous Wikipedia article on this subject was deleted several years ago. I'm no new article patrolling individual or suchlike, just basically trying to say I'll be happy to help expand this article with you (and maybe others) over the coming weeks.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great! Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Valoem/List of auteurs, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valoem/List of auteurs (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Valoem/List of auteurs 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. Legacypac (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac:, I’ve informed you in the past to please discuss with me before notminating a user page in my space. This one is important please withdraw the nomination in good faith thanks. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no recollection of such notification, but feel free to make a case at the MfD and I'll consider supporting your keep rational. Legacypac (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valoem, depending on whether everything was merged, this could be a case for deletion review. But it will be more practical to imply merge in the additional people--at least all of those that do not have a source. If the source is only a book, without a page number, there might be some challenge, so it would be clearest to try to find them, at least as a first step. I think they are somewhere in the edit history of the merged article. If you can't find them, let me know. DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard Yong, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malaysian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Fredgoldbergv.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 01:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 March 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Austin package explosions, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 22:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, uh... regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goat people, would you mind elaborating? "Keep" just amounts to throwing out the views of half of the commenters: 7-6 in favour of keeping (disregarding the fact that a number of "keep" or "rename" comments didn't present coherent arguments or misquoted policy) is at best "No consensus, default to keep". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88:, I believe sources provided by Cunard specifically addressed the issues presented at AfD since AfD is technically not a vote. I have elaborated the keep with a possible rename. The second source provided Field Guide to the Little People: A Curious Journey Into the Hidden Realm of Elves, Faeries, Hobgoblins & Other Not-so-mythical Creatures states "The most famous of these are the Panes, Satyrs, and Sileni of classical Greece", which suggests the article is not synth. It appears that clean up is better than deletion or merging based on policy based rationale. Do you have an issues? If you do insist I don't mind changing it to no consensus defaulting to keep, but I do believe the sources provided lean this toward keep. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Spartaz, and will add that the sources cited in the close rationale are not independent and objective. The text and especially the forewords of Field Guide to the Little People: A Curious Journey Into the Hidden Realm of Elves, Faeries, Hobgoblins & Other Not-so-mythical Creatures and Animal Dreaming: The Spiritual and Symbolic Language of the Australasian Animals explicitly argue that paranormal creatures are real. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you have been on an anti-fringe movement, however the sources provided are published secondary sources, I would be more than willing to see what Hijiri88 opinion is here as to how to proceed, a no consensus close is not an objection I have. Hijiri88 asked only for an elaboration, which I am more than happy to expand, there are additional sources which are can be provided, on top of that the source Animal Dreaming: The Spiritual and Symbolic Language of the Australasian Animals clearly states this is mythological. Also your claim that the first source suggesting these are real, though I am not seeing evidence of this, it does not suggest the source is not independent. Are you saying that Field Guide to the Little People: A Curious Journey Into the Hidden Realm of Elves, Faeries, Hobgoblins & Other Not-so-mythical Creatures is the creator of this myth? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Insinuations that I'm part of some nefarious "movement" won't gain you any traction here. There are many reliable academic sources published on the study of mythology. The two sources you have given as a closing rationale are not independent of the belief in paranormal creatures, and can't be considered an authoritative source of fact about how mythical creatures are categorized. I'm not sure how anyone can read the forewords contained in both of those books and miss the arguments for why readers should believe in the supernatural realm. Again, there's a good chance higher quality sources are available, i.e. scholarly studies of mythology by objective academics. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how you came to the claim of "nefarious" movement, only that you have a history of bias against fringe topics including reverting time slip against consensus because another editor added fringe information. Also your explanation does not mean the source is not independent of the subject and there are no issues with the source Animal Dreaming: The Spiritual and Symbolic Language of the Australasian Animals and here are additional sources The Mythology of Grimm: The Fairy Tale and Folklore Roots of the Popular TV Show, but yes there are high quality sources regarding this myth in fact another editor posted the Chinese myth in the discussion with this source here. I'll change it to no consensus to resolve any issues. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Valoem Just a reminder. Your personal opinions, e.g. I understand that you have been on an anti-fringe movement and you have a history of bias against fringe topics, are not appropriate here per WP:TALKNO. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then you have misinterpreted the context which I was speaking, in no way did I intend the comment to be interpreted as a personal attack. I don't think it was neutral to merge an entire article because some random editor added fringe information, I hope you understand where I am coming from. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Your disdain for other opinions are such that im not going to waste community time at drv. I have undone your close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, your abrasive personal attacks against me will end now. If Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) asks me to reopen the case. I will gladly. You have fabricated evidence against me here and I will gladly discuss this. You have also personally threatened my family with the edit "Do you have children Valoem", an edit which you deleted out of the history that I will request to be restored. I elected not to engaged you anymore, but if you continue this childish desire for victory, you can take it to ANI. I gladly discussed with you. I have spoken with LuckyLouie (talk · contribs) on his talk page and any editor acting in good faith which both Louie and Hijiri88 are. How would you like me to proceed? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What discussion did we have bearing in mind you removed my request to revert without comment. You grasp of events seems very tenuous today. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made a follow up here on DGG's talk page. The proper channel as you know is WP:DRV. Your edit history against me is bad faith editing. Feel free to open an ANI if DRV fails, but grow up and move on. You do not engage me directly without a profound apology of your past behavior. Your behavior as an administrator is unbecoming. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about goat people or most of the other issues in this discussion, but I happen to still have this user talk page on my watchlist, so I'll comment. A non-admin closure is not appropriate in this case, because the outcome is a close call and controversial. (The fact that it's a close call is obvious, because you apparently changed your mind about the outcome.) See WP:Non-admin closure. I would suggest that you revert your close and either relist the discussion or wait for an admin to close it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any admin who is not Spartaz may do as he likes and I changed my close to make an uncontroversial close. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you should use the template {{nac}} when performing non-admin closures. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Also there is no other possible close than no consensus or keep. Goat people is a historical concept stemming from multiple cultures. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion, and a supervote. The other editors who commented to that effect were unable to provide reliable secondary sources; an admin (with the technical ability to close as "delete") might have dismissed those !votes that essentially amounted to unsourced personal opinion, which would give a clear consensus to either delete or redirect. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valoem, regardless of other matters, a nac was not appropriate in view of the diversity of opinions. I suggest you revert yourself. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If any editor @Mx. Granger:, @LuckyLouie:, or @Hijiri88: still wishes for me to reopen the discussion I will gladly. I also have no issues if @DGG: would like to reopen it please feel free do to so. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of subsequent edits, I unfortunately have no idea how to do it properly. If someone does, please do it for me. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I had some trouble following your response on a talk page. In turn, I've indented your text and moved over some of the trouble-causing asterisks at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goat_people (cf. Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_others'_comments). :bloodofox: (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dr DisRespect 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/Dr DisRespect 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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add that these are Doxing and personal attacks. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Dave Dial (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously suggesting my defense to your comments and highlighting comments you actually made is a PA? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have accused me of being a banned sockpuppet. Mischaracterized my interests, accused me of lying about myself and have tried to dox me. If you believe these things, then you should take them to the appropriate venues. Which is SPI and/or ANI. If you do not believe these accusations, then you should apologize for making these accusations on various Talk pages and drop the doxing attempts. Either one or the other, bud. Dave Dial (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello seems like I saw you made an article like ninja can you help me with this thank you so much :) in advance. Personale (talk) 07:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Personale:, the article need some reliable sources though I am certain this person is notable. Here are some sources [4], [5], [6], and [7]/ Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valoem it's very hard for me as im still quite new, but i will try if i have enough time thanks for the sources. :) Cheers. Personale (talk) 07:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

does this source necessary? cant find any about him. [8] though

Personale (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for attempting to restore the article. I really don't know why one editor is so against having another AfD discussion, so I've resorted to Talk:Bust_of_Cristiano_Ronaldo#Request_for_comment:_Should_the_article_"Bust_of_Cristiano_Ronaldo"_exist_in_main_space? in an attempt to get editors to re-assess notability. You can comment there, if you'd like. The comment you left lower on the page is kind of part of the discussion, but that won't transclude and might be overlooked by other editors participating in the RfC. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: this is clearly notable and passes GNG. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, which is why I started this discussion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, edits like these are pointless, since it's a bot-built page and Legobot (talk · contribs) will merely overwrite your edits (see the page history). The page is a list of ongoing RfCs; each entry begins with a link to the actual RfC, and you should follow that link, read the RfC and comment there. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I see, they are left for discussion on talk pages, I was unaware at the time. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Fwb-logo.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Primo-hoagies-logo.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sophia Rossi 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/Sophia Rossi 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. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Alexbrn (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're edit warring here and you still haven't provided much of a justification for this particular edit. Time to pump the breaks and work on gaining consensus. Nblund ^talk 12:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What edit wars? There is a solid disagreement, the version you have edited purposefully removed Nugesser's strong argument which he provided as a lawsuit against Columbia. It is the strongest piece of evidenced used by media for his presumed innocence. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're an experienced editor, I'm sure I don't need to explain what "edit warring" means. Nblund ^talk 00:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nemu64. Since you had some involvement with the Nemu64 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valoem. I have redacted a comment made by you on the talk page of Emma Sulkowicz. Please do not call people liars in this context or ask for such to be inserted in the article itself without sources to back up the exact phrasing you're using. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I highlighted multiple sources that used that exact word. Removing such claims can result in an ANI. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 01:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Just a formality, since you're active in this area and don't appear to have been notified. –dlthewave ☎ 01:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please self-revert [9] as a violation of "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article." restriction. As an aside, per WP:SECONDARY wikipedia summarizes secondary sources and depends primarily upon them, not primary sources like the memo itself Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valoem, I work on behalf of JUUL UK, would it be possible to add the UK official website to the external links section?^[1] Website: https://www.juul.co.uk/ 89.197.82.107 (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Valoem. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I'm bothering you because you are a recent contributor to the Home video page. Might I ask you to weigh in at talk:Home video#First sentence? Thanks in advance for any response. Jeh (talk) Jeh (talk) 09:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

XNXX, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 07:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to ask you to consider undoing your closure of this discussion, and let an administrator handle it. At around 6:4 in terms of numbers, any consensus to overturn my closure is at the least not very clear. Close calls should be left to administrators, per WP:NACD. Thanks, Sandstein 10:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, my first thought on seeing this was the same. But, the more I looked at the discussion (which, by my count, I made 7:3), I was OK with the WP:NAC. Our instructions talk about, cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time. Even if this doesn't meet the patently obvious clause, it does meet, not been closed in a good time. Maybe we want to re-word that to be and instead of or? In any case, I've listed this at WP:ANRFC. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Thanks for the follow up I actually though my close was the only possible close. Sandstein (talk · contribs) questioned it so I reopened. The problem is all the usual DRV closers have participated in this DRV, I was just trying to do some basic maintenance. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith and Valoem: Thanks to you both! Sandstein 15:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't claim I've looked closely at your record, but what I recall and what I've seen recently makes me think you'd be a fine admin. If you do put yourself forward for that at some point in the future, would you please place a note on my talk page? Thank you. Hobit (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit: Of course, I appreciate you comment, you can nominate me if you want. :) Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what are you trying to achieve with the lists of casinos by state? That information is better integrated into overview articles where it can be presented with more context about the scope and history of gambling in the state. In the case of a few of the articles that you demerged, I wrote the "Gambling in X" article specifically to provide better context to eliminate the need for an anemic list article. Also, in states with just 2 or 3 casinos, why would you want to present them as a list, when the policy is generally to prefer WP:PROSE. Toohool (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Toohool:, There have been many templates and most states should maintain such a list as historically they did. I think it makes it easier to see casinos by state in that way. I think 3 or more should have lists. I agree if it is two probably just merge with gambling in that state. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 08:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "there have been many templates"? History is not a reason to do things - the "history" of these state casino lists only exists because one editor wanted to split up List of casinos in the United States years ago. "Easier" is not really the right criterion either; as an encyclopedia, we should strive to cover topics with the depth and context that they merit, rather than splicing out topics into a vapid "quick facts" format. If a reader wants to see the 12 casinos in Oregon, why wouldn't we want to put that list alongside information about how those casinos came to exist and what other major forms of gambling those casinos compete against? Toohool (talk) 08:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely reasonable to merge the small ones, but for states like PA, NJ, LV or any with an extensive list, I disagree. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that larger lists like Nevada, Oklahoma, Mississippi, etc. should remain as separate articles. The NJ and PA lists are anomalous in that they're currently bloated with stuff that shouldn't be in there (in PA, you included the list of off-track betting parlors, which are definitely not casinos; in NJ, there is a list of non-notable online casinos, as well as an unnecessary list of former names of casinos). With proper trimming, those lists are better off being merged I believe. Toohool (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Buttermilk Crispy Tenders 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/Buttermilk Crispy Tenders 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. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

阁下的编写帮助了我很多，这是一条来自中国的感谢信。--420peace (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valoem, I recently read the Terry A. Davis article, and I think it's close to meeting the criteria for being a good article. As one of the top contributors to the article, have you considered nominating it? — Newslinger talk 14:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger: Hey the article looks good it seems Ilovetopaint (talk · contribs) expanded the article considerably. If anyone wants to nominate I support, I believe it does pass GA. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Ilovetopaint on their talk page, but they declined. If you're not interested in nominating the article, would you mind if I nominate it? — Newslinger talk 03:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do nominate, I support the nomination. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you're a member of WP:FDM, and I'm hoping you might have the time and interest in helping review a draft I'm working on for Girl Scout Cookies. I have a paid COI regarding its creation, so I'm looking to people from WP:SCOUT and WP:FDM to help check my work for both accuracy and its compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. I left a detailed description of my proposed changes on the talk page. Do you have a minute to take a look? I have a Sandbox which took the existing Girl Scout Cookie article alongside what I could find in my research. Any feedback you have will be greatly appreciated!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FacultiesIntact: The article looks good I only looked for promotion. Good works, I didn't have the time to check every source. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

For two mass reverts without looking at what you were reverting Ribbet32 (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Demonhouse.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Braxton C. Womack^{talk to me!} 17:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elements (restaurant) 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/Elements (restaurant) (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. Rusf10 (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Enjoy Punta del Este has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article is basically three lines, which I have already incorporated to the Punta del Este article.

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. uKER (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Valoem: You are invited to vote on Pineapple juice.Catfurball (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cinebench, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Benchmark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

This looks to be WP:BLP1E territory, as all the working references used are about his having lost a large sum on a gambling binge.

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. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think both MarkTen and LOGIC (electronic cigarette) are not notable. MarkTen has gone out of business and the MarkTen e-cigs are no longer available. Rather than start a deletion discussion I thought both could be redirected. For MakTen I would redirect it to List of electronic cigarette and e-cigarette liquid brands. For LOGIC (electronic cigarette) I would redirect it to Japan Tobacco International and mention it under the Brands section. Vuse can be merged into R. J. Reynolds Vapor Company. QuackGuru (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think Logic and Vuse are notable they can be found through the US. I remember seeing MarkTen as well, but I haven't seen that one in a long time I agree with the merge for MarkTen, but I would prefer the other two remain as stand alone articles. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to List of electronic cigarette and e-cigarette liquid brands for MarkTen without a merge.

A redirect to Japan Tobacco International and discuss LOGIC under the Brands section.

A redirect to R. J. Reynolds Vapor Company and discuss Vuse in the main article. Vuse is part of R. J. Reynolds Vapor Company.

There is not enough content for splinter articles and LOGIC and Vuse are not notable enough for stand alone articles. Eventually LOGIC and Vuse will be nominated for deletion. QuackGuru (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, can you start an article on Transpacific flight and help expand Transpacific crossing? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finding sources for Transpacific flight and crossing is an issue. You could add Transatlantic crossing to a see also section. I will continue to discuss it with med project about these e-cig articles. I hope you will comment after I comment. QuackGuru (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Mandalorian has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Chapter 2: The Child has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

content fork of The Mandalorian

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.

The article Chapter 1 (The Mandalorian) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

content fork of The Mandalorian

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.

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Jefferson Health into Thomas Jefferson University Hospital. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—English afternoon tea—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 
• 
• 

Happy New Year!

• 
  MMXX Lunar Calendar

Valoem,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

---

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say thank you for starting the new page. I don't know who you are IRL, so I just wanted to contact you here and say that I have the Eurohound community behind me and I will be coordinating their efforts to crowdsource the page. I, of course, appreciate all your help. Thank you.Tinjaw (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment there is no article for the helicopter crash. So, for the time being, shouldn't the template remain? TheEpicGhosty (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash, but it has been redirected and protected without discussion, therefore we need to wait until the outcome. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can't simply remove the template unilaterally on an article like this, you must seek consensus on the talk page. John F. Kennedy Jr. plane crash exists and has an infobox. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: Yes you can same as the 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash was redirect and protected without consensus or even a discussion. The discussion is about moving the information regarding the crash to the article about the crash as well as the fact that this article is about Kobe not the crash. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because another decision was made unilaterally doesn't mean this one should be, multiple users have reverted you and since you have declined to do so I have added a section at Talk:Death_of_Kobe_Bryant on the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two editors who opposed this and two editors in favor of have a separate article on the crash itself. I've also been thanked for removing the template in favor of its inclusion on the crash article. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 01:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was also thanked for restoring the infobox. I think we should agree to disagree for now as the current situation is chaotic and nothing will properly be resolved for days. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two articles, Kobe Bryant and Death of Kobe Bryant. 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash is a redirect. Whatever the title of the death article eventually ends up being, it will have the aircraft incident infobox, because it is pertinent. Abductive (reasoning) 01:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive:, I believe the protection of the redirect is improper. The correct thing to do IMO is to unprotect then expand and add the infobox to 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash. Kobe is not the only person who passed away, a vast majority of articles on helicopter crash do not involve famous individuals, this will eventually be split. But it does appear to me that there is a consensus which favors an article focusing on the crash including the renaming of the article to Kobe Bryant plane crash similar to JFK Jr's page. Split the page now while the event is current is best method for expansion. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 01:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are not considering the needs of the readers. The infobox needs to be there now, no matter what the articles will look like in the future. Abductive (reasoning) 02:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The needs of the reader would be best realized with a full separate article about the crash. We cannot include details of the technicalities of the accident in an article about the death of Kobe. Adding the infobox may prevent the split which would be determinantal to reader. These are long term considerations. Unfortunately many editors in general on this encyclopedia care more about "winning" then what is actually best for the reader. After being here so far long, I've seen this time and time again where editors merge content against consensus and then tout how they were "right" because editors lose interest over time. I know you are not doing this, but these things do happen and the goal is to prevent any individualist goals. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have found that split/forked articles lose readership non-linearly. And those details are what interest a great many people. "The Death of ..." must explain the death. I'm not even clear what else would be in such an article, maybe an execrable "Reactions" section? Abductive (reasoning) 02:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death of notable individuals should include information about the incident as well as immediate and lasting impact. For example, the Death of Michael Jackson would include an investigation section as he was the only/primary victim. Because there are multiple victims in this case a separate article is warrented. What we cannot do is include other victims unrelated to Kobe in article about his death, after all theses are not "Victims" of the Death of Kobe Bryant, but victims of the 2020 helicopter crash, am I making sense here? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your premise that a separate article on the crash is necessary. But until there is one, blackmailing the readers—and editors who care about the readers—by weakening the Death of Kobe Bryant article is diametrically opposed to what Wikipedia stands for. Abductive (reasoning) 04:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive: You must be confused, removing unrelated information strengthens the article and moving that information to the proper article strengthens the encyclopedia as a whole. The editors who favor the splitting of two article as quickly as possible are the editor who actually care about the readers therefore editors who prevent the splitting of two separate articles are in fact "blackmailing" the readers as you said. Policy dictates we should and must have separate articles. The strongest editors are the ones who provide the proper information to the readers without bias. You've been on Wikipedia long enough to know about Wikienvy, these are the editors who are not here to build an encyclopedia, but to "win" an argument. Let's take a look at Diversified technique and other fringe science articles. Everyday these articles have information removed for a merge. The editors who do so are certainly not here for the viewers, but because they do not want fringe science on an encyclopedia they feel should only focus on the subjects which they devoted most of their life to. Both Octomom and Snooki were nominated despite blatantly passing WP:GNG. Some editors do not like the fact certain people pass GNG when they themselves do not, the best example is Günter Bechly who clearly passed GNG when he focus on evolution, but "lost favor" with editors when he began to believe in intelligent design. I am the editor who had UFO sightings in outer space restored. Those who favored deletion were unable to cite any kind of policy for deletion. I've been fighting for the viewers since day one and what I see here is an attempt to merge a notable crash which killed nine people into an article solely about Kobe Bryant. In order to prevent this we cannot merge the information because the initial editors who favored the merge will argue that the information is already here and there is no need for a split in order to maintain their "victory". This is what hurts the viewers the most. Please do make it clear that I am not suggesting the editors involved in this topic have this intention, only historically these things tend to happen and in this case leaving unrelated information out can prevent this. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 05:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Pizza Time of St. Augustine has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:ORGCRIT

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. BonkHindrance (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Primo-hoagies-logo.png, 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. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 13:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valoem! Here's the discussion I was referring to when reverting: Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data#Outdated recoveries when there is no official data. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message with the updated figure from Arcgis here. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6027:81:4591:ADCC:59B2:4A74 (talk) [reply]

see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaurarjun/Archive. Doug Weller talk 05:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thomas Fitzpatrick (pilot) 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/Thomas Fitzpatrick (pilot) 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. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valoem. Please see this edit at User:JuJube which I made per a request at WP:RFED. User:WT79 The Engineer wanted to credit User:JuJube for his work on a draft article about a band called Alquimia, which is now hosted in your user space at User:Valoem/Alquimia. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course please do. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valoem, I've seen you rescued Joel (The Last of Us) which people are grateful, but they refused to think that Max Caulfield isn't notable given that sources plus I found more [10], do you think you can restore it to mainspace back?. 178.153.45.46 (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know anything about that character I've never heard of the game. It seems most the sources are dead links, but there need to be reliable sources with character analysis not just plot outlines, there should be enough if you make a good article with solid sources. If you make a user name and add strong character analysis sources, I can help you attempt to restore. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT I noticed you are working on Ness which I do know about and is definitely notable I'll restore that for you. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Günter Bechly 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/Günter Bechly (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. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this, thanks! Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first known outbreak of the Spanish Flu was in Allied Armies. The origin of the strain is unknown but the first known outbreak was within Allied Armies.

It is disputed some say it came from China, also the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is in fact the same country and government as Serbia and Montenegro. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and State Union of Serbia and Montenegro were different political entities. However the wikipedia article for Serbia and Montenegro appears to include both countries. This is still inaccurate, and in the same way there are different articles for the Kingdom of Great Britain/Kingdom of Ireland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Or the Irish Free State and modern day Ireland (sometimes referred to as the Republic of Ireland). Although terroritery controlled by both states did not change, the actual nation did. From 2003 Montenegro was independent in all affairs aside from International Relations and defense. Serbia and Montenegro did not even use the same currency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azaan Habib (talk • contribs) 19:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is correct then you can restore a version in the redirects history. Your editing has been highly contentious and had all been reverted. Your first edit was an unsourced political statement about Econ Times. You seem to hold a grudge against the left and I’m someone who does have issues with certain far left beliefs but I don’t go about it like you are. Given the fact it is a new account there is cause for concern. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How can you claim I believe in a New World Order? Covid-19 has been referred to quite often by President of the United States of America, Donal Trump, as the China Virus, and the first documented outbreak of the Spanish Flu was within Allied armies, the actual origin is unknown. Is there a reason why you failed to read my edits and labelled my likely believer of a New World Order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azaan Habib (talk • contribs) 19:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t have anything to do with that more so the edit on the Spanish flu. Some NWOs believe the Spanish flu was spread some Illuminati forces within the west bent on destroying the west. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my edits onto the article for Serbia and Montenegro instead. I have used near to seventy citations and am unable to find the grudge against the left you speak of. The original article only had around 24 citations. I do still think the FR Yugoslavia should have separate article, considering it was a completely different country except by land area, like the Irish Free State versus modern day Ireland.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2724047.stm Yugoslavia died in 2003 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azaan Habib (talk • contribs) 09:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 12:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't kept track of whether you are still using them, but if you are going to edit BLPs or political articles you need to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Doug Weller talk 12:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: I've already replaced the source with snopes.com which is listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as reliable. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you probably had, but wanted to raise the general issue. If no one else gets around to it I'm putting the candidates under Discretionary sanctions as the one I looked at wasn't. Doug Weller talk 14:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:POINTY creation of page for non-notable biologist after he was used as an example of a non-notable biologist at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly (2nd nomination)

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. Guy Macon (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz 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/Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz 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. Guy Macon (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JBL (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jens Franzen 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/Jens Franzen 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. Guy Macon (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2020 novel bunyavirus outbreak 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/2020 novel bunyavirus outbreak 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. PainProf (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Please be aware of these. As they are construed broadly and may include viruses that are added without MEDRs citations. PainProf (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

see my comment DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]