(For a start it should be World landmarks). What is the category based on? Is it original research on your part, or is the category the subject of a verifiable 3rd party source? If the former than it will be deleted, if the latter you should probably have that in the category, such as XXXX's world landmarks. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 07:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--

Well, you caught me just as I was finalising the inclusion criteria. I'd also got half-way through drafting a list of things for the discussion page, it was going to be a "community consensus" project, with a core of no-brainer inclusions (Empire State, Statue of Liberty, Parthenon, etc.,) and then we'd all get together and thrash out what else ought to be added or deleted further down the list). Landmarks are defined by visibility and distinctiveness ... it helps if they are big, exposed and architecturally unusual. Fame also helps. Perhaps Notre Dame shouldn't be in there ("plus points" for fame, "minus points" for cathedrals all looking a bit similar), but that was one of the topics that was going to be discussed, along with whether natural formations like the Grand Canyon should count.

I thought it was going to be a fun project, an interesting and useful category working entirely to a Wiki consensus (After I'd kicked things off) and I couldn't understand why it didn't already exist ... and then a few hours after the first link, I get a post telling me that the category must correspond to an existing third-party list, or "it will be deleted". There's an official Wiki rule that says that the provision of content is supposed to take precedence over legalistic arguments Wikipedia:Product_over_process WP:IAR Wikipedia:Ignore all rules " If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them. See Also

   * meta:Don't be a dick
   * Wikipedia:Use common sense
   * Wikipedia:Consensus
   * Wikipedia:Be bold
   * Wikipedia:Trifecta  "

, so this seemed to me to be okay.

You know, the "Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy" thing.

But if deletist rule-monkeys are going to be already be warning of impending deletion before the category's page has even been finished, then really, it's not worth contributing, is it? I'm off to spend my time on something more rewarding. Deleting. ErkDemon 09:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think your proposed category would overlap the existing Category:World Heritage Sites, which covers much the same ground but in a more verifiable way. -- ChrisO 10:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that when you think of the high-profile architectural landmarks built in the last century that everyone would probably agree ought to be at the core of a "world landmarks" list -- the Empire State Building, the Eiffel Tower, the Sydney Opera House -- the instantly-recognisable cliches, the sorts of things that get drawn on world maps meant for kids, or destroyed in movies like "Independence Day" -- if it's less than 200 years old it probably won't be on the World Heritage list. That'll give the Pyramids and the Acropolis and a bunch of cathedrals, plus about 800 things that you've never heard of or wouldn't recognise, but it won't give modern icons like, say, the World Trade Centre (RIP). The Statue of Liberty manages to get listed, but that's all there is for New York.

Adopting the WH list, you'd tend to think that the only culturally important sites in North America are the University of Virginia (?) Independence Hall (?), a whole bunch of national parks and one statue. Everything else there is too new to be on their list. ErkDemon 13:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ErkDemon. I'm sorry I did not have the time to read your contributions in details. I'm sure that there are some fine points that are valuable. I thought it was best to revert everything because of the major issues I highlighted. I encourage you to continue to contribute to this article to make it better. Pcarbonn 11:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:QuantumGravity_logo.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- RG² 21:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created the image myself, and thought that I'd selected the GFDL licence to reflect that. There was also a copyright tag embedded in the image, in the file's "info" field. But it's deleted now. Oh well, never mind.

An article that you have been involved in editing, Observerspace, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Observerspace. Thank you. MortimerCat (talk) 09:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the "heads-up", MortimerCat! Unfortunately I seem not to have logged in for a few months, so I missed it.

For the record, the term shows up under Google Scholar and Google books as "observer space" (two words), which would have been the proper WikiPedia title. I've mostly seen the term used in discussions of strongly-curved spacetime, where we'd expect a difference between the perceived shape of spacetime and the calculated underlying shape. It gets mentioned, for instance, in the context of applying optical metrics to black hole problems. The "Google Scholar" and "Google Books" results support the idea that the term gets used in philosophy, psychology, art ... just about any field that deals with perception and analysis.

The lack of references in the article was a problem, as was the accidental neologism of compacting "observer space" or "observer-space" into one word, when it should have been two, but the afd voters who thought that this was new term obviously didn't have a proper background in the subject(s) covered, or else they'd have already have come across it. The article could have benefited from some judicious editing, but total deletion was a bit unfortunate.

There's still a lot of material in print that someone with a specialist degree-level education will know about, but which doesn't yet appear in the standard search-engine indexes or in all the recent online abstracts. For instance, as one of the afd voters correctly pointed out, "observer space/observerspace" gives zero hits under SPIRES-HEP ... but that doesn't mean that the term doesn't exist, because if they'd tried Google Books or Google Scholar (which are both fairly recent innovations), they'd have found about ~480 and ~350 hits respectively, even though those projects are still "works in progress" (it's going to take a while for Google Books to scan and index the entire contents of our major libraries). Some of the hits will be artefacts, but if you page through some of the results, you'll see lots of hits that refer to philosophy, mathematical physics and psychology, with some older works on relativity theory and philosophy, and a bit of computer modelling and visual perception analysis thrown in for good measure.

The afd comment about "positivism" would have been valid within the context of pure philosophy, but would be rather less valid in some of the other contexts in which people find the term "observer space" useful. I don't think that many mathematicians working on black hole optics would appreciate being told that they should be using language "owned" by the philosophy department down the hall!

I think that perhaps some editors on Wiki should consider spending less time in front of a computer monitor editing articles and more time down their library actually reading books, or should at least try to limit their edits to subjects where they have a significant amount of personal knowledge, otherwise Wikipedia risks becoming a dumbed-down "best of the web" compilation, where the criteria for inclusion becomes the existence of existing webpages on a subject for Wikipedia to plagiarise. ErkDemon (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, while we're on the subject of black hole math, where's Wikipedia's article on optical metrics? I could have sworn that it had one. Maybe that got deleted too, who knows. I could start one, but if I do it some bozo is liable to type "optical metric" into Spires-HEP, get zero hits, and decide that that means that that subject isn't real, and needs to be deleted, too. Ho hum.

This is why I don't contribute articles to Wikipedia any more. Too many "deletionists" who don't appreciate the shortcomings of their own general knowledge. As long as the deletionist hordes don't delete the article on acoustic metrics ... ErkDemon (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks.  Ravenswing  06:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and if you actually read that rule, you'll find that it refers to Wikipedia debating, and about how one should try to debate politely and criticise people's content or actions ("Comment on content, not on the contributor."). It's not a rule about articles (unless an article is misused to attack a fellow wikipedian). Please do not suggest that a fellow wikipedian has been making personal attacks if they haven't. ErkDemon (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.  Ravenswing  06:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the page did not fall foul of the biographies of living persons policy, nor did it attack any dead persons. It was not an article about a person, it was an article about a company. The wording of the No Attack Pages page is slightly ambiguous, but seems to be about attacks on people (hence "such pages ... in violation of our "biographies of living persons" policy ..."). The "attack pages" wording says "the subject", but when someone raised the point on the policy's discussion page that "subject" was too ambiguous a word because some people might mistakenly think that it might apply to things other than people (like stetson hats), the possibility didn't seem to be taken very seriously. ErkDemon (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, 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 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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  Ravenswing  06:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that the notice has been placed in error. I think that even if we overlook the definite misapplication of the "no personal attacks" rule, and set aside the probable misapplication of the "no attack pages" rule to subjects that aren't people, it's still a bad call to subject the article to speedy deletion on the grounds that it appears to outline an overly negative image of a company. In this case, it is exactly the company's negative image that has generated the media coverage that's made the company relatively (in)famous, making it notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. The claims made by aggrieved customers have created a full-page story on the front of The Guardian's IT section, they've been discussed on BBC Radio 4's consumer affairs program (which ended up interviewing one of the directors), they've been the subject of a UK governmental "Office of Fair Trading" investigation and report that was eventually settled by the company directors agreeing to change the way that they did business, and the way that their software operated. This company is the only company I've ever heard of that is so disliked by so many of their customers that they've supposedly got their lawyers to get the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to sign a special order invoking recent post-9-11 anti-terrorism laws to protect them - from potential retaliation from their own client-base. That in itself is a pretty noteworthy achievement. I did try quite hard to find any examples of anyone saying anything positive about the company to include in the article, but I couldn't find anything.

But unfortunately it seems that you've already deleted the article. ErkDemon (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was tempted to revert the new anon's edits as self-serving and ill-cited, but I think the version I'd be reverting to needs its own citations as well. I'd suggest you take some of the material in the external links section and make in-text <ref>...</ref> footnoted references. In particular, where the lead says it's a Trojan horse, I think you need to quote Symantec or such other WP:RS. If you cite well, the article is easy to defend. Regards, CliffC (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The person who wrote the introduction to the MBS article wasn't me (I'm not the anonymous editor). It was a different contributor who characterised the MBS software as a trojan, and who added the trojan category to it. My edits to the MBS page amounted to not much more than a few cosmetic changes, the mention of (and link to) Platte, and adding the weaker "malware" category. I did use the trojan category for the Platte article, on the basis that the MBS article was already in that category. ErkDemon (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Technically, the "GetFilmsNow" site itself was the trojan.

Wikipedia describes "trojan horses" thus:

"In the context of computing and software, a Trojan horse, also known as a trojan, is malware that appears to perform a desirable function but in fact performs undisclosed malicious functions."

The GetFilmsNow site purported to be a site that would let you download (desirable) major Hollywood new-release movies, and showed child-friendly stills from The Simpsons and X-Men as examples of its content to entice people in. That content didn't exist, but in order to discover that it didn't exist (and that the site's front end was a sham), you first had to click on a link that would install a piece of software on your computer to let you browse the lists. At which point you'd finally realise that it was a porn site with a fake "front end". The "malicious function" was to persuade people to install a dangerous piece of software on their machine (or if they were a kid, on their parent's machine), that didn't actually do what it was said to do (allow you to access cool movies), and which, if it wasn't immediately gotten rid off, would dig itself in and start charging the owner of the computer money for its removal.

The user had to be alert to the fact that they'd just been conned, and remove it immediately. If they forgot, or if they thought that they weren't liable to pay for a service that wasn't as advertised, and which they had no intention of using, or if they thought that nothing would happen if they simply never visited the site again since they hadn't given their name or details, then once three days had gone by the software wouldn't uninstall, and the "new customer" was immediately liable for thirty quid. If they didn't pay up, the software would effectively try to "wheel-clamp" their computer. If they tried to regain control of their computer by shutting down the rogue processes using Ctrl-Alt-Delete and the task manager, then each time one of the processes was manually ended, the other(s) would detect the change and relaunch it. I don't think that anyone's ever managed to get to the bottom of all the things that the software did to the user's computer, or all the information that it collected, but certainly it seemed to be chock full of "undisclosed" functions that were directly antagonistic to the interests of the (often unwilling) user. The site seemed/seems to exploit a number of psychological tricks to encourage people to run their executable without realising what they are letting themselves in for. I visited the site (very carefully) to check it out before writing the PlatteMedia article, and the first link that caught my eye was called something like "having problems?". Was this an advice page? A FAQ? FAQ pages are usually interesting, so I clicked the link, and found myself being served up a fake error message that said that I'd been unable to access the site and that I should click the button below to activate a gateway. According to the webpage code, that button then launched the infamous executable. That's with no prior warning about what the executable might do, and no indication that by clicking the link, one might be liable for anything. It looked like the sort of innocuous message that you get when a site tells you that your version of flash is out of date. I think that a lot of people would have clicked on it.

A more ironic reason for listing Platte/MS under "trojans and malware" is that the new parent company, Platte International, also happens to advertise its security division as malware specialists - the site currently mentions phishing and pharming as two of the areas where their company can provide expert advice. In other words, they're advertising their expertise in the tricks that criminals use to design fake websites that maliciously encourage people to click links and install software that they really shouldn't...

If you're going to investigate these sites, be very careful what you click on. Some of the links point to executables where you might not expect them to. Okay, so some of those "surprise" executables might conceivably be benign, but I'm damned if I'm going to risk launching them to find out. ErkDemon (talk)

PPS, regarding the suggestion that we should cite antivirus companies' opinions as to whether the MBS software is malware or not ... those companies are now under legal duress not to describe the MBS software in these terms. According to the article in the Guardian, "Symantec, McAfee and AVG, have been contacted by MBS about interference with lawful commercial practice.", so while it's documented that those companies have at some point treated the MBS software as something undesirable, they're probably under notice from Platte that if they refer to the software like that now, or repeat any earlier uncharitable characterisations, they're liable to be sued. MBS/Platte lawyers have also apparently been threatening various discussion group owners with legal action, and SOMEONE has even managed to get the Wikipedia page on the company irrevocably deleted, like the company doesn't exist. No page history, nothing. If Platte have their way, the relevant discussion groups will be suspended or deleted too (the webmasters apparently have their court dates booked), and after that, it'll become more difficult to find data to support any future Wiki article on the company, except by using info from the company's own site. Which we already know contains information that isn't true - the PlatteMedia site still describes their "getfilms" site as providing access to all the latest movies, despite the directors having given a public undertaking to the OFT to stop misrepresenting the site's contents and clean up their act. ErkDemon (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Imagekind logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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. Skier Dude (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. Someone's replaced the Imagekind logo with a PNG version. GIF version now redundant. Delete away! ErkDemon (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:Ebook sources ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Ebook retailers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on South Coast Design Forum requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, 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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), 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. RadioFan (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Brighton Belle street mural, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pullman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in this discussion: Talk:Hafele–Keating experiment#source of info for mountain-valley experiments? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article HD media player 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/HD media player 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. Codename Lisa (talk) 07:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brighton Toy and Model Museum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pullman. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 27 August 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) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that Einstein wanted any of his remains kept and labelled -- remember, this was a guy who wanted to be cremated, and insisted that he didn't want a grave or a statue or a monument. If he thought that having a statue was creepy, god knows what he would have thought of people hoarding bits of his brain and other internal organs.

I think that the police should confiscate all this material, and unless anyone can provide evidence that it was taken legally, it should all be cremated in accordance with the guy's wishes. And a blood-curse on everyone who was involved.

Yep, right there with you. What a foul act. 83.21.86.207 (talk) 08:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ErkDemon. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ErkDemon,

Thanks for creating Ayanna Witter-Johnson! I edit here too, under the username Meatsgains and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Meatsgains}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Meatsgains^(talk) 02:16, 15 April 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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Touchscreen mobile phones, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. uKER (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Route dependence 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/Route dependence until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wormhole theory has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kugelblitz (disambiguation) 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/Kugelblitz (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Museums with wikis has been nominated for conversion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Problems with Einstein's general theory of relativity has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Hoax/crackpot article. Whoever wrote this article seems to be trying to claim that GToR is fundamentally incorrect. Acknowledging that there are unsolved problems, the current content has multiple issues and needs to be written from scratch

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. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Problems with Einstein's general theory of relativity 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/Problems with Einstein's general theory of relativity until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 05:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erk. When a discussion is leading towards deletion, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problems with Einstein's general theory of relativity, please allow an admin to handle the closing of the discussion and page deletion. Do not blank the page and then add a CSD tag. Non-administrators should generally only close XfD discussions when the outcome is a clear keep. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the closure was improper, although I do not disagree with the closure itself. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

That's why I deleted the page after investigating. No harm, no foul. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fizeau experiment has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]