User talk:Fingerz/Archive 1

Recently you tagged an article I wrote about Michigan state rep. Vincent Gregory, saying "This article may not meet the general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged or deleted." According to the guidlines, a member of a state legislature is considered "notable". Most of the information in the article was obtained through an email correspondence with the State Rep. and is not available online anywhere else. I hope that I have established notablility and the tag can be removed. Chflitwick (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was vandalism, it was just a dictionary definition. I've redirected it to Peace be upon him (Islam), a few other versions of it already redirect there.[1]. —Snigbrook 22:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There really wasn't much content, nor was the notability established. All the article said is that some woman invented it about three years ago by mixing Red Bull with something or other. Looked made-up to me, but if you feel it's notable, please feel free to recreate it if you wish. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kupuaina, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kupuaina. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. andy (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you are a reformed vandal who is now patrolling the new pages, but you might want to look at Wikipedia:Speedy as there are many more tags that can be used apart from db-vandalism. Using the right tag can ensure an admin knows what they are looking for before deleting it :) I Grave Rob (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're seeking adoption. I just took one on, but it wouldn't be a bad idea to group 2 together. Kill two birds with one stone, ya know? Let me know if you're interested. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be great if you could adopt me. I'm eager to improve my contributions to wikipedia. FingersOnRoids (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. First off add {{Adoptee|wadester16}} to your userpage to replace the other one. Now, if you will, go here and answer some introductory questions for me. Thanks! ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 21:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you attached a bio stub to the David Keck page I created. If you found that page because you are a fan of the author, or maybe you are just a fan of books in general. If so:

Wikipedia ads	file info – #87

Alan16 (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I took off the CSD you put on Sowelu The Best 2002 - 20009. Unfortunately {{db-band}} only applies to the bands themselves and you cannot speedily delete an album under WP:A7, though if you want you could propose deletion through {{prod}} if you wish. Thanks, Valley2city^‽ 02:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - see you added a prod to the article. No opinion yet on notability (though the article as it stands certainly doesn't establish it), but what makes you think it's a hoax? I didn't get that impression at all. Gonzonoir (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me again :) Could you look at this diff and tell me whether I'm crazy, or whether the rewrite of the lead was just really, really small? *g* Gonzonoir (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, interesting question. I don't think copyvio technically does apply here, since copyright would relate to the literal, specific phrasing in the original. This is also rather more nicely written than the average Bablefish rambling. What's the page you think might be the source? Gonzonoir (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for joining the Wikiproject! Tim Vickers (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it could be easily done: just spell out exactly what the bot should do and I should be able to code it. I seem to recall WikiProject Plants disowning the algae, though - you should check with the wikiproject before the talk pages are tagged. Also note that all the new articles are categorised at a family level - I'm not sure what further categorisation is necessary. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why the heck would a genus require a basionym to be redirected to? What? --KP Botany (talk) 06:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where the discussion is. However, I did remove the prods. I checked a couple of articles and they were valid genera, if no validated (not necessarily no valid) species. Algae are in flux, huge flux, so it's not that big of an issue to have a genus without a species. It should be. Still, I'd leave them, merge the basionym to the genus if possible. --KP Botany (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete my page please! It is for a newly formed band that is trying to goe publicity! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amicianthony (talk • contribs) 03:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Could I make a regular (not WP:BAND) article about the band then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amicianthony (talk • contribs) 03:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FoR: Following our discussion about this article I've copyedited the text. I think it no longer reads like a straight translation of the French UNESCO source. Could you give it a look over and see if it looks all right? Cheers. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed that you deleted the botany templates at the bottom of a bunch of algae stubs, and said in your edit summary it was because it wasn't within the scope of the plant wikiproject. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but in the {{botany}} template, under plants, it lists algae. So did they change the scope of the wikiproject and forget to update the template? Regards, FingersOnRoids 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I removed {{botany}} from the algae stubs because it's one of those summary templates that's really only to be used to navigate between large topic areas, like those listed in the template. It's not meant to be on every individual species, genus, or family article. I removed {{WikiProject Plants}} from the talk page of a few algae stubs because the only algae WP:PLANTS is concerned with are the green algae, the Chlorophyta and Charophyta. I believe the stubs I said were not within our scope were red algae, which strictly speaking are not plants. Taxonomies and classifications differ, but green algae are usually considered to be in the same clade as land plants, though we frequently get misinformed high school kids changing the kingdom on articles like Volvox from Plantae to Protista (their textbooks are either outdated or chose to ignore new classification information; I recently taught an intro biology course at a community college and the book chosen -- not my choice -- still listed green algae as Protists and referred to all botanical divisions as phyla!). Hope that clears everything up. --Rkitko ^(talk) 02:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E.g., Brachysiraceae, which you recently created. It is not considered to be a plant. It's a family of diatoms and thus wouldn't warrant {{WikiProject Plants}} on its talk page. --Rkitko ^(talk) 22:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best advice I can offer is to look at multiple sources. ITIS often uses outdated taxonomy. Diatoms haven't been included in Plantae for quite some time. Additionally, our article on plants has the proper circumscription - among algae, only the green algae (Chlorophyta and Charophyta) are plants. All others, including brown algae, red algae, diatoms, etc., are not plants. Does that help? --Rkitko ^(talk) 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was wondering if you're still interested in the adoption process. Your adoption page has sat stale for more than two weeks. If you're no longer interested, that's perfectly fine, no hard feelings. I just wanted to make sure. ~ ωαdεstεr16_{♣kiss me}^{i'm Irish♣} 15:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need some help formating an image on Berching (Apartment and Tower). You can check on Berching's discussion page for what I need help with, but I basically need to know some basic formating information for Wikipedia. Thanks! Amicianthony (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see you've added a "copyright infringement" tag to the Scott Yee biography page. May I ask why? There wasn't any infringement on the page, that I could see. CJCurrie (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see the problem here. I believe the other site in question was actually a Wiki-mirror page. CJCurrie (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fingers ... I've removed the Prod tag you placed on National Register of Historic Places listings in Wythe County, Virginia and included a brief explanation in the edit summary. This list and hundreds of others like it have been generated by members of WP:NRHP. They are a very valuable resource for people interested in learning about historic properties and consolidate information in a way that is not available elsewhere. If you feel strongly that such lists do not belong on WP, please make your argument at WT:NRHP. --sanfranman59 (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 March, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article It's Just a Plant, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Interesting article! Why didn't you take expansion credit? You certainly did enough work to earn it! More than one author can take full credit. Royalbroil 12:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On March 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibaloki 22:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: It was a bit of a stretch, I'll admit. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: I'm quite well aware that it's a bit bitey. But if you want, I'll restore it and you can AfD the article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: Done. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But i put some references! You can look!

Thanks for letting me know about my mistake! I'll be more careful in the future. CTJF83Talk 22:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not edit the article with any intention to vandalize what was previously posted; conversely, I did edit the article with an intention--to make clearer the references to "chef," "cooking," and "fish." I did not post information, on [2], prior to what you refered to as my "... intentionally ... incorrect information...." I ask that you review, more thoroughly, my contribution to wikipedia; please consider reverting your action. I do hope that you do not mean to discourage editing on wikipedia? I do expect a prompt response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.118.73 (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Over at WP:Articles for creation/Redirects, it appears that while you accepted 2009 predictions as a redirect, you didn't actually create it. I've now done so, on the off chance you care. Best, Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 17:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And just a heads-up that I also replied to your follow-up message, also at the above link. Thanks, Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 21:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone your copyedit to Tommy Knight - he's British, as is Doctor Who Magazine, and they would have used UK spelling of paediatrician, not pediatrician. They both redirect to pediatrics anyway. See WP:ENGVAR. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On March 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Caridina gracilirostris, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work in general, just thought I'd drop you a note re. Faraware, which I just came across. You do know that MH (probably) meant "Blatant and obvious misinformation" when he speedied under G3? Quite appropriate then, that it should be speedied, but I'm not too fussed either way. You are, of course, welcome to disagree! ;) - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 March, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mesangiospermae, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I think there was a little confusion over my request for a third opinion on Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy. The third party comment on the talk page was from editor assistance. Now I'd like a third opinion, since the dispute is still ongoing. I'm going to add back the request, so please let the person giving the third opinion remove it. Thanks! Ancemy (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop editing MY PAGE-PeRmEtHiUs (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2009

On 4 April, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Geoffrey Cornish, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I had to archive your ER due to your inactivity and the inactivity on that page. Don't hesitate to open another in the future.--Truco 02:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FingersonRoids. I noticed that you are a member of the Guild of Copyeditors. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at my latest FAC, the Han Dynasty. The prose needs to be improved a bit, especially in regards to long sentences that need to be broken up into two or three. If you have any spare time to copyedit the article, it would be greatly appreciated. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for your comments at UAA. Just a quick note - there is no requirement for the alleged promotional username to be "blatant". That word is not mentioned in WP:U. There are two known facts about this user: 1) it is a name of a group/club, and 2) it was promoting it's own group on a page with the same name. It seems pretty clear that violates policy. Regards, JCutter (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also just a friendly note that your raw signature doesn't include a talk link. I don't know if they are required, but it seems pretty common to include them when customizing. Regards, JCutter (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the heads up :) CanadianNine 01:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, where can you find page protection articles? Ie. to find the protecting admin/reasons for original protection. Thanks, CanadianNine 01:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've overhauled the KQJZ article recently created at AfC because, as it stood, it was little more than a poorly-patched copy of the KIBG article with most of the infobox data and all of the history copied verbatim. This meant that even the most basic things were wrong, including the FCC database link since this is an AM radio station and the template was for FM station data. I've already left a note with the IP "author" of the first version of the article. - Dravecky (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not my name, just giving credit for who actually wrote it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Communism123 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She helped create and design the "Forreston History Book", a 400+ page book on Forreston, and yes, I do personally know her as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Communism123 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page creation was vandalism, except the vandal misspelled "Koolaid" (Koolaid redirecting to Urine). As far as I know there is no word "kolaid" in any language, certainly not in English. The same editor is mostly a vandal-only account. I think it should be deleted. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm really not getting your point. Why should someone who is looking for Koolaid be redirected to urine? Koolaid has nothing to do with urine except in the mind of a vandal. As a secondary argument, I don't think the manufacturers of Koolaid would appreciate the redirect to urine. If I had had a beverage company that redirected to urine on Wikipedia, I would invite Wikiepedia to take the matter up with my libel attorney. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my apologies. I misunderstood and thought you were reverting to a urine redirect. That's what I get for not reading carefully. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw your name at the GOCE, and was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at an article. Ralph Bakshi is currently listed over at FAC, and reviewers have suggested that the prose needs work. Could you help out? Thanks in advance. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

After taking some time to look over your edits, I'm impressed. Keep up the good work. I especially like things like this (and the talks that came beforehand) and the cluefulness of this. Also, keep up the good work with the edit summaries. Your vandal fighting is good; keep up with the warnings. Also, this didn't hurt either. ;-) Again, you may want to consider an editor review. They are much better at reviewing now than they used to be. wadester16 | Talk→ 20:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know what the criteria is for a proposed task force to become a new task force ? --InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page you are looking for is at WP:TASKFORCE. Let me know if you need help with anything else! ƒingers^on_Roids 00:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you're creating a good number of moth genera stubs. The problem is, they seem to be devoid of references. Do you plan on adding them? Or are you just leaving them as is? Regards, ƒingers^on_Roids 23:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, since they're only stubs, they don't require references, although I do intend on adding them if/when I add more content.   JJ (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I have to say I've never run across that policy. Can you point me to it? Thanks, ƒingers^on_Roids 23:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if there is one one way or the other- it's more of an "unwritten rule" IIRC. (not everything is written in a clear-cut policy...) However, feel free to prove me wrong if you find a link somewhere- I'll go back and add refs if need be. It just never seemed to be a problem in the past.   JJ (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd have to say the first sentence of WP:SOURCES pretty much says that there should be references. ƒingers^on_Roids 23:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? Howso? Keep in mind these are one-sentence stubs meant as almost placeholders for articles to be written at some point, not entire articles in themselves... if I were to add any more content, then yes, I would add refs. With the current lack of anything that should referenced at the moment, though, I still don't see anything to convince me why I should reference the stubs thus far... hope I said that all correctly, it got a bit confusing. :)   JJ (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not really a big deal, since there's no material in there that would be disputed and probably nothing that's factually wrong, unless you made a mistake on the whole article, which I doubt would happen. I guess I'm just saying that it would be nice if you put refs up to show that the genera actually exist, something like what is expected for articles on towns or cities.ƒingers^on_Roids 00:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, I see what you mean now. :) But yeah, I'll see if I can incorporate some additional info with refs when I create those in the future.   JJ (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say kudos for the quote on your user page, I enjoyed it. 04:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sufitul (talk • contribs)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a message for you over at UAA. Thanks. Gigs (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding [3], you can make a link to a category by placing ':' in front. [[:Category:All articles lacking sources]] produces Category:All articles lacking sources. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thank you, I was having quite a bit of trouble making the category link show up. Its a bit of irony I guess, that I was the one needing help editing Wikipedia.Fingers^OnRoids 22:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I was a bit worried that I should just be ignoring the silly little sock puppet, but I do have a hope that by engaging with it it may one day understand why it's constantly being reverted and blocked.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved back those pages, upon your request. I believe the moves went properly, but let me know if I epic failed with something. ;-) Thanks, Jamie^☆S93 22:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colds7ream (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 21 June 2009 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. End of line. DustyBot (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I already have quite a few coachees, but I'd be able to do more informal admin coaching. Would that work? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that! My mistake, apologies for making extra effort necessary. Thanks for the super-speedy resolution too. 58.8.1.199 (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Fingerz 06:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link was for a high school reunion apprently. But since its been broken for two years and no one has fixed it and the page no longer exists and has been left in its present shape, Its hard to tell wether the website was spam or not. I think the contributer didnt intend on it being vandlaism as some of the other material that he added was valid but it still was embedded. Feel free to remove it, i think you had a good eye for tracing it back so far ;) Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[4] You identified errors early on, but the bot owner did not correct them and the community ignored you. Good work for noticing what was wrong, and for continuing to try to correct it. I think the barnstar is supposed to be posted on your discussion page then moved to your user page, you probably know better than I.

I'm sorry you are dealing with a family emergency right now and may not see this. If people had listened to you, this whole mess could have been averted or at least minimized. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		The Original Barnstar is awarded to User:FingersOnRoids, who has first noticed serious problems with bot-generated algae articles and attempted to work with the bot owner and the community to fix the problems early on. Thank you for your contributions to an accurate and reliable encyclopedia. 69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I thought I was alone on trying to fix them, and I finally gave up, a while ago. It's nice to know other people noticed the errors and tried to fix the articles, though the sheer amount of articles with errors is astounding.Fingers^OnRoids 10:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4077 of them were deleted today. Again, thanks for trying to be heard. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I was asking the question about creating a new page named CITY College, International Faculty of University of Sheffield. Many thanks for your help and quick answer. I am sorry because I obviously misunderstood how article should look like. As far as I understood now it should be more neutral with basic information. Can I please rewrite the article and then send it to you to tell me if the content is appropriate? I will start working on the text now and as soon and it is done, I will send it to you. I hope that you can help me. Many thanks so far and in advance. Best regards, Floropoulou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floropoulou (talk • contribs) 09:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I think it'd be better if you submitted it at articles for creation. Doing so would give the article a much better chance of surviving, because you would get more input from different editors, while if you only sent it to me, you would only get my opinion. Regards, Fingerz 02:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya,

You asked me a couple of weeks ago why I'd declined an AFC for this; the version I reviewed here was a copyvio, and hence (on that page) the info has now been blanked.

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  20:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On July 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fedcap Rehabilitation Services, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject:Did you know 20:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you make this edit based on knowledge of the algae or were you merely correcting the bot's misplacement of the redirect? If you know something about the algal genera concerned and want the redirect to remain, please do nothing. However, if your correction was only of coding, please request the redirect be deleted by copying and pasting this line:

* <s>[[:Microglena]]: (1 edits, 1 major, +279) <span class="plainlinks">'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=272296379 (+279)]'''</span></s> '''delete'''

to:

User:Kurt Shaped Box/Anybot edits

Thanks for correcting bot additions, regardless of the reasoning behind this one. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 09:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

As an editor with a history of personal attacks[5] and of creating attack pages, I disagree that it wasn't appropriate. --JD554 (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irbisgreif (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In its current form, merging sort of makes sense, I guess... the merger did loose some information, such as ISSN and feed URL... I liked the split set up, as the info box information is available as RDF via the DBPedia project... about independent info about the journal, that is pretty scarce indeed... I'm not affiliated with the journal, and wrote a critical note about it in my blog [6]... would that qualify as independent? and the fact that I would add that to WP myself is no problem? EgonWillighagen (talk) 09:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Groovesharkcompanylogo.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 16:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you on the Guild of Copy Editors participant list, are you interested in providing copy-editing help on the "The Chinese Restaurant" article? Thanks.--Music26/11 15:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fingerz. I saw your post at Wikipedia:Reward_board#Active_requests#Articles for Creation Article Review, so I thought I would try my hand at it. Think it was a good idea to work outside the box a little and bring attention to this worthy project. With that said, I provide my diffs here Kindly Calmer Waters 08:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just had to delete it again; it was yet another copyvio by the user who originally posted the article, one User:Stevensclan. The other deletions were because of a lack of content other than an opening sentennce, itself suspiciously "copyvio-ish." Sounds as if an article on this book would be most welcomed, though. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Algae was started as a meeting space on Wikipedia for improving the taxonomic representations of the groups of organisms called algae. Please join other editors at the talk page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Algae) to discuss a higher level taxonomy for algae to be used on Wikipedia. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought you should be reminded that your reward is nearing its expiration date with no responses to it, just in case you wish to expand the expiration date on it. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 02:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 14:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nontheism.

Greetings, I see that you have chosen to conspicuously identify as a "Nontheistic Wikipedian" Me too! Currently there is a proposal to delete the article Nontheism or merge and redirect it to Atheism. Greg Bard (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I noticed you removed my speedy deletion. You said "There's context there". Yeah, that's true, but there's not enough, nor is it real. (I looked it up, I got nothing that has to do with that.) So are you okay that I go ahead and add it back? Thanks for helping! :) Endofskull (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing. I'm about to archive my talk page, because it's getting kind of long. So don't think I'm just ignoring you. My reply was "Oh, I understand now. I never knew that. Alright, thanks for the notification!" Again, thanks so much for notifying me on that! Endofskull (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have enough context? I believe that the first few words in the article,"Paramarthasara" is a sanskrit word", make the subject of the article very clear. Regardless of whether the definition is correct or not, or whether the word even exists, the article doesn't fit under A1. However, feel free to PROD it if you like for not having correct information, or adding the correct information yourself. I don't believe that the article fits under any other CSD. Fingerz 22:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non notable model, fails WP-BIO

While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 17:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See agonist. Sure is weird to see a common-language word like "antagonist" with its negation prefix removed. DMacks (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Guild of Copy Editors – May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive The Guild of Copy Editors invite you to participate in the May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive began on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). The goals of this backlog elimination drive are to eliminate as many articles as possible from the 2009 backlog and to reduce the overall backlog by 15%. ! NEW ! In an effort to encourage the final elimination of all 2009 articles, we will be tracking them on the leaderboard for this drive. Awards and barnstars A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page. We look forward to meeting you on the drive! Your GOCE coordinators: SMasters, Diannaa, Tea with toast, Chaosdruid, and Torchiest

You are receiving a copy of this newsletter as you are a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, or have participated in one of our drives. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add you name here. Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their September 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy editing backlog. The drive will begin on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on September 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles in the backlog, as we want to copy edit as many of those as possible. Please consider copy editing an article that was tagged in 2010. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". See you at the drive! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters. >>> Sign up now <<<

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their November 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on November 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles (and specifically will be targeting the oldest three months), as we want to copy edit as many of these as possible. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters. >>> Sign up now <<<

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 01:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Elections are currently underway for our third tranche of Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, 16 December – 23:59 UTC, 31 December. All GOCE members, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are five candidates vying for four positions. Your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2011 Year-End Report We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2011. Read all about these in the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report. Highlights Membership grows to 764 editors, an increase of 261 Report on coordinators' elections Around 1,000 articles removed through six Backlog elimination drives Guild Plans for 2012 Requests page report Sign up for the January 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Get your copy of the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report here On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. We look forward to your support in 2012! – Your 2011 Coordinators: Diannaa (lead), The Utahraptor, and Slon02 and SMasters (emeritus).

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their March 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate the remaining 2010 articles from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, Stfg, and Coordinator emeritus SMasters. 19:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

The article National Republican Trust Political Action Group has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Attack page consisting entirely of biased criticism.

While all 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. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]