User talk:Mistakefinder

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Mistakefinder}} on your talk. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Welcome!

Hello, Mistakefinder, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- IRP ☎ 22:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to drop you a short note as to why I reverted the recent edit that you made to Gene Simmons. Although the band normally spells Kiss in all caps, it is part of the Manual of Style to treat trademarks as words and not use all caps. This is explained in MoS:TM, Kiss is even one of the provided examples. Cheers, J04n(talk page) 00:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, changed it. J04n(talk page) 01:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you still did it. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

redirect to another language wikipedia? Not how we do things.

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. Ironholds (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Makiyo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Cnilep (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, November 9, 1989. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - November 9. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at November 9 - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Eeekster (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mistakefinder, to answer the question from my talk page, for Z-Chen I think the issue that lead people to think he's not notable is lack of coverage in English-language media. There are actually a whole mess of rules/standards on this stuff. See WP:GNG, WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:MUSICBIO and related pages. As for your concern about similar artists who have not been deleted, see also WP:OTHERSTUFF. A person's vote in these debates is supposed to be impartial and without prejudice, and I don't think everybody on Wikipedia behaves that way, but most do. So there's no hatred toward Z-Chen, hopefully, but people just concluded that he is not (yet) notable enough for Wikipedia. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see response, in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps#China and Taiwan map in Cross Relations article.

If you do need more help with anything, please use the {{helpme}} here, on your own talk page. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  04:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just wanted to explain that I undid your edit over at Local churches (affiliation) - I appreciate your desire to wikify things and to make sure there are informative links for people to jump to, but in this case, there were just too many links :) We try to pick our links carefully so that whatever *is* linked to is relevant to the article and will enhance the reader's understanding of it. If you want to read more about what is considered overlinking (along with policy on links in general), please click here. Thanks!

-- Joren (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your approach has promise. For the moment, I'm going to change national flag to civil ensign, "under" to "in", and "is the business" to "describes the business". I have a feeling that "that registrant" and "sovereign state" could be polished. Cheers. Haus^Talk 18:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to provide a reliable source and/or discuss it further. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your edits clearly state Two Chinas, this POV is contradicted by both the "One China" and the "One China, One Taiwan" POVs. T-1000 (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Anyone interested in this discussion, please go to the China discussion page. Mistakefinder (talk) 08:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 23-May, you tagged Republic of Taiwan (false) with {{rfd}}, but you did not complete the nomination by listing it at WP:RFD. Can you please complete the second step of the nomination per the instructions at the WP:RFD page? If you do not list it within a reasonable amount of time, I'll assume you no longer wish to see it deleted and will remove the template. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JLaTondre. I've completed the RFD listing. Mistakefinder (talk) 08:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, from here: [1], the convention states to "As a general rule of thumb, the official political terms "People's Republic of China" or "PRC" and "Republic of China" or "ROC" should be used in political contexts (that is, to describe the existing governments or regimes) rather than the imprecise and politically charged terms "China" and "Taiwan." For example, "Hu Jintao is the President of the People's Republic of China" is preferred over "Hu Jintao is the President of China." Likewise, one should write "one must be an ROC citizen to vote in the ROC presidential election" as opposed to "one must be a Taiwanese citizen to vote in the Taiwanese presidential election."" T-1000 (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here, you linked the word 'fortnight' under the guise of "wikification'. The word has no salience to the subject of the article; all you are doing is supplying a potential dictionary definition. Please refer to WP:OVERLINK. Thanks for your attention. Cheers, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • You're right. Thanks for the pointing to the guidelines. I'll revert it. I was thinking it wasn't a commonly used word (at least in the US). Perhaps it's much used in the British Commonwealth world? Mistakefinder (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That text is problematic for more reasons than its being unsourced. It is a total fringe position held by no one except some KMT extremists that China is under military occupation. (So I don't believe that you can find reliable sources saying that directly; otherwise I would have just slapped a {{citation needed}} tag on there) There's a better case to be made that Taiwan is under military occupation, since the world's governments basically recognize the PRC as the legitimate government of China and China's position on Taiwan, but making that argument is not my intention. Shrigley (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're no longer saying that Taiwan claims the mainland. However, you still don't have a source that says China considers Taiwan "occupied territory". Also, your last sentence about "Taiwanese [living] under long-term threat and fear of war" is still hyperbolic and not neutral. Shrigley (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think such feelings are necessary to mention at all. The article is supposed to be about occupied territory, and it should only really discuss the legal aspect. Shrigley (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The text looks good now! Merry Christmas to you too. Shrigley (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-recent-move, the article is now also about the island of Taiwan, so no hatnote is needed for it.
• I agree that normally using less generic hatnote templates would be preferable. However, the hatnotes need to include their reason for existence, which would make them repetitive in this case:

Hence the combined generic {{hatnote}}, to avoid saying "Republic of China" redirects here twice. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, joining in because I've reverted your hatnote at Geography of Taiwan. The purpose of a hatnote is to help people who arrive at an article by mistake find the article they were really after. No-one is going to arrive at Geography of Taiwan when they're looking for the country (unless they've followed a misdirected link, in which case it's the link that needs fixing). Kanguole 08:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC) To Cybercobra and Kanguole,[reply]

• Is the island article being merged into the former ROC article? I didn't see the concensus on merge. Only saw that all island related entries [Island of Taiwan, Taiwan (island),etc.] redirected to Geography of Taiwan. So seems it's necessary to clarify it's on the Geog of Taiwan island, not Taiwan/ROC as a whole?

Cyber, I'll need to revert yours to restore my paragraph, then I'll keep your hatnote. Mistakefinder (talk) 08:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAMB explains the issue. It's implausible that anyone looking for the country would go to "Geography of Taiwan", "Island of Taiwan" or "Taiwan (island)". Kanguole 09:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan (island) was indeed merged (by others) into Taiwan prior to being redirected to Geography of Taiwan. --Cybercobra (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your addition to the lead in the Supreme Court of the United States: we used to have a mention of the SCOTUS abbreviation in the lead. After discussion it was decided to remove it. That's why I directed you to the archive. See also the more extensive discussion in the current talk page. First: you should not simply state that it is used "often" without references. Second: the press does not seem to use the abbreviation much, though it is somewhat common in Blogs aimed at professionals (but even such sites as SCOTUSBlog usually uses "The Court" when talking about it). Of the many things that the Supreme Court is called (e.g., "the High Court", "the Court", "the Supreme Court", "the Supremes") SCOTUS is just not that common outside a particularly narrow circle. I'm posting essentially this in the talk page, perhaps we can discuss it there. Magidin (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that disambiguating Coronary arteries appears to create a WP:DABCONCEPT violation. I would suggest restoring the previous redirect to Coronary circulation. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is it, precisely, that you want to add that you don't feel is adequately covered by the previous version? The history section has a much more detailed and nuanced explanation of the issue, and we already spend one paragraph in the lead talking about it...

Consider replying with what you're trying to say in Chinese? :/ Aside from generally finding it unnecessary, I'm also confused by what you're trying to say with your new paragraph. Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Division of China. Since you had some involvement with the Division of China redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 07:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I was curious about the a couple of the edits you made to Waterloo; one was

• Waterloo, Belgium, location of the famous District battle

Though I appreciate that there are occasionally good reasons to go against the "one bluelink per line" and piping rules, I can't see that this is one of them; the battle is referenced elsewhere and I'm not sure what an obscured link to Napoleon Bonapart (rather than the battle itself) adds.

I also removed the link to "eponym" as the dab page isn't about that term and (IMHO) isn't something to be bluelinked.

I'm assuming that (as you've been around since 2009), you're probably familiar with the basic rules for disambiguation pages (and don't need a pointer to WP:MOSDAB!) Your other changes seemed sensible, so this is probably correct.

But I'd be interested to hear if there was a reason behind the changes mentioned above.

All the best, Ubcule (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. Ok I'm fine with your comment. I haven't actually fully reviewed MOSDAB so thanks for pointing it out. I'm not sure why you piped "District" for Napoleon and what that means, but your latest edit is fine. Thanks! Mistakefinder (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'd definitely recommend that you read MOSDAB then; I can't claim to know every word of it myself, but it helps to know the main points. There's also a short summary of the basic rules displayed every time you edit a disambiguation page.

Regarding "I'm not sure why you piped "District" for Napoleon and what that means"... *I* didn't add it at all(!) The diff link shows that it was added by you, that's why I asked you about it(!!)

Weird! I guess it may have been on my paste clipboard by accident... thanks. Mistakefinder (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the best, Ubcule (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. A bad dab (1 valid entry, rest are WP:PTMs). 2. A bad WP:SIA as currently they're not the same type (was also in WP namespace) 3. bad list of any kind - unsourced local scope

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Widefox; talk 08:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Transbay 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/Transbay 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. Widefox; talk 07:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your user subpage at User:Mistakefinder may not meet Wikipedia's user page guideline. If you believe that your user page does not violate our guideline, please leave a note on this page. Alternatively you may add {{Db-userreq}} to the top of the page in question and an administrator will delete it, or you can simply edit the page so that it meets Wikipedia's user page guideline. Usage of userpage for advertising/soliciting work. Paid WP editing is allowed but there's no WP:COI / paid editing disclosure. The use of a userpage for advertising business (internal or external WP) is also not allowed. Widefox; talk 08:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Addressed. Mistakefinder (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page Transbay. However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation dos and don'ts, you should:

• Be familiar with the guidelines and style
• Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
• Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
• Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry
  • Only add a "red link" if used in an article, and include the "blue link" to that article
• Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
• Do not insert external links or references

Thank you. Widefox; talk 08:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a mess and needs deleting. You've been advised to read WP:MOSDAB before. Did you? Here's some links. Although you may mean well, this may be perceived as disruptive editing or not listening to other editors despite clear violations of several guidelines / policies. Widefox; talk 08:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to you talk page. Please feel free to fix. I will try to get to it these few days. If it's unfixable and inappropriate, then perhaps deleting is OK. However, you didn't answer my question about China (disambiguation), where many entries within it appears to be what you call WP:PTM. Perhaps entries there need to be edited too? Mistakefinder (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did reply - see Talk:Transbay. Widefox; talk 23:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the word be pronounced like /suɾutʃ/, not [sɪŋt͡ʃi] which suggests a Turkish spelling of Singçi ? --Mahmudmasri (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's how it sounds like here, so is the recording wrong? Mistakefinder (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I added the stress mark. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to One-China policy. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After having checked and found that only 105 main space articles reference Singular they, I was going to explain and then revert your change to Ankara train collision. But I see now that someone else has changed to a less awkward construction.

As someone who favors the singular 'they', rather than impose a pronoun on someone, I have no problem with the usage. However, in forcing the insertion of the explanatory link, it comes across as advocacy - or imposition - of the singular they. Simply by calling attention to this usage, this one word, in an article otherwise about a tragedy.

It would be similar to linking word succumbed. That would be calling attention to a particular word, but that in no way helps explain the subject of the article. Certainly doing so in the lede is a distraction. But anyway, the same later edit simplified that to 'died'. Shenme (talk) 03:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mistakefinder, thanks for your edit to Eswatini. I'm afraid you'll find that it will soon be reverted, if it hasn't been already, as there are a couple of editors there who are repeatedly reverting similar changes that have been made by numerous other editors. Just wanted to let you know that I agree with your edit. There's discussion, in case you're interested, at Talk:Eswatini#"formerly known as Swaziland", as well as some overlapping comments in Talk:Eswatini#Replacing mentions of "Swaziland" with "Eswatini" in all articles. The reason given in the edit summaries for the reverts is usually "discussed ad nauseum" or similar. It's true there has been a lot of discussion, but unless the discussion leads to consensus, which I don't think it has, that's not a valid reason... --IamNotU (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing me to the discussion. Mistakefinder (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and thank you for contributing the page GOOD TV to Wikipedia. While you have added the page to the English version of Wikipedia, the article is not in English. We invite you to translate it into English. It has been listed at Pages Needing Translation, but if it is not translated within two weeks, the article will be listed for deletion. Thank you. 94rain ^Talk 07:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the time being I have moved it to Draft:GOOD TV. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Good TV 2 logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Good TV 2 logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at WP:AN/I regarding [2]. The thread is Possible shared account/paid editing?. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct. The majority of countries do not explicitly recognise Taiwan as part of the PRC. The way it actually works is that the PRC claims that Taiwan is part of China, and then none of the PRC's allies (anyone who recognises the PRC) are allowed to protest against this (aside from some of the great powers) out of fear of offending China and suffering from economic sanctions imposed by China. In fact, few countries explicitly recognise Taiwan as part of the PRC, despite the fact that they recognise the PRC in favour of the ROC, because they still want to do business with Taiwan under the table, and recognising Taiwan as part of the PRC will probably result in economic sanctions from Taiwan and the severance of unofficial diplomatic relations. The thing is, although Taiwan is a lot smaller than the PRC in terms of geography, population, economy, etc., Taiwan is still a very important member of the international community regarding culture, society, diplomacy, trade, industry, etc. Cutting off all ties to Taiwan (whether official or unofficial) is not in anyone's interests. The only countries that are willing to do this are tiny and/or poor countries such as the Solomon Islands since they can survive purely on whatever China (PRC) is willing to hand out to them for free (in exchange for recognising the PRC over the ROC). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mistakefinder Could you write/translate the article of Isabelle de Charrière (Q123386) in Mandarin Chinese for Wikipedia? That would be appreciated. Boss-well63 (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Hsu Shu-hua (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines 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. buidhe 04:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gogoro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scooter.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! On behalf of WiTricity and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I've shared a draft entry for Chinese Wikipedia, which is a translated version of the English Wikipedia article. I'm searching for an editor who is willing to review this draft and update the entry appropriately. Might you be willing to take a look? Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A quick update to say that another editor has reviewed the draft. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect November 9, 1989 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 17 § November 9, 1989 until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 08:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mistakefinder,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]