Hi, I need some help with some copyright tag selection, please. The article under construction can be found at "Skaggs Family". There are three categories of image sources that have and I think I've only decoded one tag so far and it doesn't seem appropriate for what I'm trying to do. Taking this case first: I have a physical letter from the publisher of a report granting me permission to put 4 images on Wikipedia. It seems, however, that the {copyright} tag, appropriate for this category, now doesn't enable this permission(???)

The other sources fall into websites and newpapers. The websites are from Safeways, a Skaggs Health Center site acknowledging the Skaggs couple who set up the Center, and a site that covers the history of grocery stores, called groceteria. I have contacted the latter one to gain permission us use 3 images from there.

The images from newspapers involve one set from the early 1900s and one from the LA Times in 1988. Please help me find the the appropriate tags for the websites and newspaper sources and help understand why I can't use the copyrighted material when I hold a letter giving permission to use 4 images in Wikipedia only. My user name is Don Nielson but I'm new to this world. Thanks.

Hi Don, welcome to wikipedia. Your question about copyrights is one that I've seen crop up quite a few times on the discussion forums. Basically, since this is a "free" encyclopedia, we want all content to be licenseable under the GFDL or a similar license. What this amounts to is basically allowing anyone to use the images for any purpose, including commercial interests, as long as credit is given to the original author. Statements giving explicit permission to wikipedia used to be acceptable, but The Powers that Be changed that around May 2005. The reason being that such stements allow for the images' use on wikipedia, but they do not account for third-party users (people who download images from here and use them for their own purposes).

For the newspaper images, I'd say you can make a good case that the old images falls under the public domain, given its age. If you can, upload the image's date of publication and the name of the newspaper in which it was published, so that this can be verified in case anyone challenges the its legality. The newer image is probably still subject to copyright. If I recall correctly, the copyright term in the US is 50 years after the death of the author.

As for the website images, make sure that the websites actually hold the copyright to the images on their pages; since its very easy to duplicate images on the Web, you can't take this for granted. Assuming that the websites do hold the copyrights, seek out the owners to see if they will allow publication of the images under a GFDL license. — EagleOne\^Talk 01:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently created a Star Wars: Obi-Wan userbox and would like you to have it on your userpage because of your edits in the beginning of the year to the article, Star wars Obi Wan. For editing well in that article, you might as well have this (if you want it).

If you hate the game, please don't take offense on me. If you decide to put it on yr userpage, just copy and paste the userbox template on it and use it. This thing is sort of like a reward. Please tell me if you put it on. Thank you. Weirdy 09:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC) The Second Weirdy?[reply]

Thanks for the offer, Weirdy, but I will have to decline. I don't hate the game, I've just never played it, and it would be wrong for me to say that I enjoy it when I haven't seen it. — EagleOne\^Talk 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I need some help with determining copyright status of some as-yet-unloaded images. I want to make sure I do it right the first time. I'm planning to write an article about a well-known WWII Luftwaffe Sergeant. He has since passed on, but his family wrote to me and told me they would be willing to pass along digital images of photos they have in their/their father's personal collection. Some of these photos were included in a book about their father and the author (U.S.) of that book has also been contacted about allowing use of those photos for this project. What tag goes on those photos then, or do I need to get additional info/permission from these kind people before I can proceed? Many thanks. ScreaminEagle 20:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found it a little messy that some 24 characters had various types of disambiguation in their brackets: Some had (24), some had (character), some had (24 character). I though they should all be consistent. Look at all the characters articles for Prison Break. They all have the same disambiguation. --T smitts 18:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that on Talk:VMware. My mistake. — JeremyTalk 01:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you were helping on the image copyright tags page so I came to ask for some help. I'm not quite sure what I should tag this image with [1] (I haven't uploaded it yet). The website (morguefile) says that its images are free for use, see the terms, but I'm not sure which tag I should use. I'm hoping you can help. Thanks :) James086 ^{Talk | Contribs|Currently up for Editor Review!} 14:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have commented on the talk page for List of Shopping Malls regarding criteria for inclusion. Please see WP:MALL where there is an ongoing attempt to create a guideline for which shopping malls are deserving of articles. Your thoughts are appreciated. Thanks!Edison 06:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, hold the "Welcome to wikipedia" crap; as you can see from this very talk page, I've been a contributor since 2004. And second, why do you think that my new article doesn't conform to the guidelines? There are plenty of articles on software companies already. This one is needed due to a debate on the Diskeeper article about the relevancy of some content to said article. My addition creates a perfect home for the content. — EagleOne\^Talk 02:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I agree this seems abusive. I posted a comment on his talk page, but I'm sure nothing useful will come of it. Oh well. --Gtcaz 10:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Military-insignia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Megapixie 03:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, EditPad, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EditPad. Thank you. Vacuum Cleaner 01 21:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:GarrettHidinginDarkness-Thief-DeadlyShadows.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:EditPad Win32 544 Screenshot.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BetacommandBot 18:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a second AfD nomination. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EditPad (2nd_nomination). —Kurykh 19:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the article 2 months after an AfD wouldn't have made much sense, right? :) —Kurykh 19:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sticking that last little insult in there. Really appreciate. Real mature.

I did not see the second nomination, because it the first nom didn't link to it. That, and the search function is terrible. — EagleOne\^Talk 19:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Last little insult"? Please explain. —Kurykh 19:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it doesn't make sense to delete an article 2 months after a failed AfD nom. I don't need to be told that, so please don't insult my intelligence. The reason why I started this dialog with you is because I could not find a second nom. The 2nd listing didn't appear in the archived AfD debate pages, and it wasn't linked on the first AfD nom page. I have now linked the two pages. Also, the shell page links to the first nom, not the second; thus, the confusion. — EagleOne\^Talk 20:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help on SESAC. —Toby Bartels 21:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are sought to resolve the issue as the page is scheduled to be unlocked for editing in a few days time and I hope to have an understanding before then to prevent future conflicts. This will be my last reminder to you as I do not wish to bother you. Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments on the talk page regarding the desirability of separate Notes and References sections. Thanks. Edison 17:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought you would like know and credit was given.

Article: Slide Show: America's Most Affordable Housing Markets referenced by "Affordable Homes in Every State"

Direct to photo: http://images.businessweek.com/ss/07/09/0926_housing_market/source/22.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.234.206 (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for the heads up! — EagleOne\^Talk 14:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greendale Mall, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Greendale Mall satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greendale Mall and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Greendale Mall during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portals go in the "See also" section. See Template:Portal 199.125.109.56 20:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put portals in relevant context, not isolated in the see also section. — EagleOne\^Talk 00:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I move them back where they belong. They are links to other relevant information, just like all the other see also links. 199.125.109.56 (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I move them back where I want them, in relevant context. And just who the hell are you?? — EagleOne\^Talk 15:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EagleOne. It appears that you copied and pasted List of Virtual printer software to List of virtual printer software. Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself using the move link at the top of the page, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you, Shawis (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rolled back your removal of pricing information. Microsoft doesn't sell any OS direct; WHS is available through suppliers like everything else. Now if you mean off the shelf, then yes that's true; but it is available for enthusiasts; indeed MS pitch it to them as well, for System Builders rather than OEMS.--Blowdart | ^talk 19:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" 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. Quentin X (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiousity, what was broken? I do think it improved the link, as it now gives an expansion upon rollover, but it wasn't actually broken. I only bring this up as it might be a symptom of an incipient urge to fix wikilinks that aren't broken. Cheers,NapoliRoma (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the real issue here is my use of the word "Fixed" in this context, instead of "Improved". OK. I chose that word for the sake of expediency. It takes less time to type "Fixed". Your point is valid, that it technically wasn't broken; however, I just don't care. As for "fixing links that aren't broken", I do on occasion check for pages that link to "LDAP" the redirect page and point them to the article. I do this mostly when I'm bored, and because I believe that articles should link directly to the intended page, not a redirect page.

Your implication is that I shouldn't "fix" links that aren't broken. I ask, "what's the harm"? I will continue to "fix" those pages that link to "LDAP" whenever I get bored; though, maybe I'll start writing "Improved an LDAP link" in the edit summary to settle the anal-retentive crowd. — EagleOne\^Talk 21:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I seem to have touched a nerve here, which was not my intent. As I said, I recognize that adding the pipe in this case is a net goodness, since it provides an expansion of the initialism if someone rolls over the link.

However, I didn't mean to imply that in general, unbroken links shouldn't be fixed; I was actually hoping to be very explicit about this.

In some cases (and acronym/initialism expansion is the only one I can think of), it's acceptable; in most cases, at best it's editing churn -- especially since what's the "real" article name and what's a redirect can and does change. At some point in the future, someone may consider that no one ever says "our Lightweight Directory Access Protocol server must be down" and change the name of the article to "LDAP" -- is it then ideal to update all the articles that linked to the former name, even though it still exists as a redirect? In other cases, you may be circumventing an article name that later becomes an article of its own.

That's why I included the link to Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken, which covers "what's the harm?" In the greater schem of things, though, it's not the most egregious crime on WP; carry on if you must. But I did want to point out it goes agsinst guidelines, for what seem to be decent reasons. But again, I didn't mean to be contentious about it.--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I have tried to add the Green IT Event link to the Green Computing page. You have deleted it as 'it is blantant advertising'.

I don't quite understand why an event dedicated at all issues of Green Computing is not worthy of being linked to, in comparision to say:

Software LocalCooling - a free power management tool for Microsoft Windows from Uniblue Labs that allows users to optimize their PC's energy usage. SusiClimate - a Mac OS X application which calculates the PC's current CO2 emissions in realtime

In the case of LocalCooling this software just does what the OS can do but with Uniblues branding all over it!

Also Green IT http://greenit.net/ - is a consultancy!

I am starting to lose faith with Wiki as events are always logged as spam whereas companies are regulary listed. I also cite that CES in Vegas is listed in Wiki - that's an event.

Green IT Event is going to be very important for raising awareness in the UK over Green issues.

I would also submit that the event includes involvement from Microsoft Forrester VMware Dell ComputerWorld UK

And the content includes debates, seminars, workshops, government awareness raising activity etc.

Most of whom are listed in Wikipedia.

The event link by the way will not become redundant as the event is annual and will includes a directory of suppliers, news, white papers etc all year round.

Yes - it is companies responsiblity to advertise their products but in business companies deal with other profit making industries and as this thread talks about mainly business issues (virtualisation) so most relevent links will be to businesses?

So with all the discussion above I submit my case for the entry to stand. I submitted twice by the way so as to attached my login to the submittal so you know it's me who submitted.

yours faithfully

Arran Coole www.aspevents.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspevents (talk • contribs) 10:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a question you might be interested in on Talk:List of energy drinks - should it be notable only? An ongoing list without references seems out of keeping with WP:NOT, but I'm not 100% convinced. What do you think? WLU (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I'll post a reply on the article's talk page. — EagleOne\^Talk 20:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it. Furhter comment, your talk page is pretty long, have you considered archiving? Long pages take longer to load up for people on slow servers. If you paste the following onto your page, it'll archive automatically anything older than 7 days. Very convenient. Paste it at the very top of the page (without the nowiki tags) and it'll take care of everything for you. WLU (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{User:MiszaBot/config|maxarchivesize = 250K|counter = 1|algo = old(7d)|archive = User talk:EagleOne/Archive %(counter)d}}

Aw, you said you'd post and you never did! I've been culling redlinks, but I would really like someone else's opinion on this - should the list contain only blue links, or is it OK as long as even the parent company is a blue link? D'you think this is worth bringing up on a noticeboard or Talk:Lists? WLU (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it standard practice to keep numbers and units together with a non-breaking space? —Random832 (contribs) 18:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of that being standard practice. Can you point out a policy that recommends the use of nbsps in this situation? — EagleOne\^Talk 18:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSNUM#Non-breaking spaces —Random832 (contribs) 17:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. — EagleOne\^Talk 21:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of speech recognition software, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: List of commercial speech recognition programs. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DirectoryMark uses LDAP, yes, but it is not actually *useful* for its stated purpose. I.e., as a directory benchmark suite it is worthless. It also hasn't been updated in years, there's no value in referencing it.

It is single-threaded, so it doesn't generate enough load to indicate the actual performance of the target server. Generally its load-generator scripts use a broken random number generator, so it doesn't actually test across the full range of entries in a given database. And of course, the load generators are pure perl code, so they're extremely slow. There's at least a 100:1 difference between using the pure perl vs e.g. Net::LDAPapi which provides perl wrappers for the C API.

DirectoryMark should be dropped from this page and never mentioned again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Highlandsun (talk • contribs) 22:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...never mentioned again"? Sure sounds like you have a grudge or something against DirectoryMark. Even if that's not the case, the last update brought around LDAPv3 support, which makes it compatible with the most recent version of the protocol. I think we should keep it on the List of LDAP software article, because it LDAP software, and I still find it useful for it's intended purpose. Let the reader decide if directoryMark is a good fit for their needs. I'm not in the business of making up other people's minds, which is what you're asking by completely taking DirectoryMark off the list. — EagleOne\^Talk 01:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Their package hasn't been updated since 2003, and as I already mentioned, nothing that it claims to measure bears any relation to reality. If you look at their published reports, the last LDAP server they tested was Netscape 3.0. They still quote that they adhere to draft 00 of the LDIF spec, even though LDIF was finalized as an RFC years ago. It has no relevance to LDAPv3 today, they don't even reference the RFC4510-xx series of specs. If you think you're getting meaningful results from it, you're seriously deluded. If your aim is to provide a high quality of information here, then even suggesting that DirectoryMark should be used is derailing your goal. Highlandsun (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't appreciate you calling me deluded, there's no denying that DirectoryMark has not been updated for many years. Whether the data it produces bears any connection to "reality" is your opinion, and you're welcome to it. I still say we should let the readers decide whether DirectoryMark is a good fit for their needs. I'm willing to compromise with you and move DirectoryMark into a "Historical" section or else mark it as such, if you're willing to lay off the insults. — EagleOne\^Talk 21:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I've listed for its shortcomings are facts, not opinions. DirectoryMark is full of bugs and is technically obsolete, these are facts. The numbers that it yields are much smaller than real world applications will observe, and that is also a fact. Its stated purpose is to measure the performance of directory servers - that is also a fact. The bugs in its load generators and their overall poor implementation prevents it from accurately measuring a directory server's performance - this is a fact. What is insulting is that you ignore all these facts and label them as opinion. "Letting the reader decide" is valid when the choices are reasonably equivalent and readers are already cognizant of the ramifications of each choice. But unless you've used each of these packages extensively, as I have, you aren't going to be sufficiently cognizant, and on technical merit the choices are far from equivalent. Of course, if you already knew the pros and cons you wouldn't need to be reading a Wikipedia article. Marking it as "Historical" is a start, but that's still too mild. The LDAP world has left it behind, for numerous solid reasons, and you haven't even hinted at any of them. Highlandsun (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Mega Lo Mart, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? « ₣M₣ » 19:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Hand Held Speech, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Justpassin (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need help getting an image of The Benjamin Adams House onto it's page. It's my house, I took the picture myself and I've uploaded into wickimedia. But, I still cannot figure out how to get it onto the page.

Please help.

thanks.

Jackie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbouvier69 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I and have reopened the discussion here [[2]]. Would you care to chime in? thanks. Smatprt (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:VMware#The_material_that_was_split_off_into_separate_articles. Again, thanks for your work in doing the splitting, even though there was that problem I noticed. If you reply, please reply there instead of on my or your user talk page.  :-) Cheers, --unforgettableid | talk 18:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:StillLifeUSBoxCover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. JaGa^talk 01:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ISO image software (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

non-notable per WP:BK

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. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The King of Torts until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message delivered by Dominic at 08:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.[reply]

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of VMware software 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 template from the top of the article. Codename Lisa (talk) 07:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA on October 16! (drop-in any time, 6-9pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of regular expression software 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. Antigng (talk) 05:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

The article Redline (API) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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) 19:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]