Welcome!

Hello, New World Man, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Astrokey44|talk 10:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, New World Man. I'm SuggestBot, a Wikipedia bot that helps new members contribute to Wikipedia. You might like to edit these articles I picked for you based on things you've edited in the past. Check it out -- I hope you find it useful. -- SuggestBot 15:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rogerthat ^Talk 10:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was just wondering if there was any reason why you changed the categories listings for "Jón Þór Birgisson" to "Jon Þor Birgisson". His name is spelt with the accents. Is there some kind of Wikipedia convention regarding this that I'm not aware of? I've reverted it for now. Thanks --Dave ~ (talk) 10:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed accents on that and several other articles' category listings for alphabetization purposes. I hoped no-one would mind. --Steve 10:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry about that :) --Dave ~ (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting the template on all the appropriate pages. And, as a "thank you," here's a barnstar! Keep up the good work! — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 04:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		New World Man, I award you this Template Barnstar for your efforts to place the The Price is Right template on the respective pages. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 04:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, I should have realized that you weren't the one who made it. :P But, still, you deserve a barnstar, so I'll give you the Working Man's Barnstar, instead. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 04:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for your comment on my talk page... I should have done some research before randomly handing out barnstars. But do notice that I corrected myself before you left that note on my talk page :P. Thanks anyways! — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 04:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits to Beth Geisel. As noted on the page, please do not edit pages currently marked as copyright violations. --Yamla 23:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making my football coordinates less precise. I am trying to center everything on 50 yard lines, the center of domes, and pitchers mounds. Surely you know I;ve been working on standardizing this for several days. Thank you.--68.184.81.196 03:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the coordinates you just entered for Banfield seems to be incorrect, Google doesnt show them (??) and yahoo points to Club Lomas , Banfield stadium is few blocks into the north. Jor70 19:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please look into her page to help decide what to do with it. t hanks! ForrestLane42 20:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42[reply]

Before going on a mass page renaming spree using non english Diacritics you should have read over the page which has been addressing this debate for months. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Player_pages_format -IrisKawling 02:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore on Talk: Colorado Avalanche a consensus was reached, to leave diacritics off ALL 30 NHL team pages. GoodDay 20:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits, such as those you made to February 22, have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Xdenizen 00:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add flag icons to television station infoboxes. The members of the project discussed use of the flag icons and decided against them. Thanks. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on WWF Bloodsport - ECW's Most Violent Matches, by Closedmouth (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because WWF Bloodsport - ECW's Most Violent Matches is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting WWF Bloodsport - ECW's Most Violent Matches, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 02:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of television stations in Arizona by city of license, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of television stations in Arizona by city of license 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/List of television stations in Arizona by city of license and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of television stations in Arizona by city of license 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. --Hirohisat ^Talk 06:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing the founded dates in television station infoboxes. The date that a TV station went on the air was not its founded date. For stations newer than 1978, we have been using the date that the FCC issued the original construction permit, as a station's history precedes its on-air date, sometimes by ten years or more. We use the on-air date only for stations older than 1978, unless there is documentation indicating otherwise. If your sources list the on-air date, I invite you to put that into the History section of the articles (with citation, of course), because it adds to the article. I am kind of puzzled that the two yearbooks seem to list different days; perhaps you should go with one or the other.

Also, there is no need to replace UHF with ultra high frequency, and certainly no need to replace a wikilink with a single capital letter with all lower-case, as they are the same. Wikipedia, by default, capitalizes the first letter of any article, image, template, etc., when storing it. UHF now redirects to Ultra high frequency, so there is no need to redo them. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about the founded date in the infobox; see my comment here. DHowell 01:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 01:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you kept quite busy on August 23 modifying articles "List of Television Stations in (insert state here)", including New Jersey. I like your template, although I'm not sure what the proper protocol is for modifying an existing template for an entire category of articles and whether what you did was appropriate. What I do know is that the New Jersey article is one of the few (if not the only) list of television station articles that had been properly updated to include digital television stations currently on the air. When you modified it, you eliminated every digital television station, and then went on to also delete many of the low power television stations currently licensed and operational in New Jersey. Therefore, I reverted your changes to the New Jersey article.

I would urge you to revisit your creations and restore any information you deleted without cause. The Congressionally mandated transition to digital will be complete in less than 18 months and all the analog stations you are leaving on the list will go dark on or before that date, while the digital ones will continue to broadcast for many years to come (absent a complete shutdown of over-the-air television service, which is highly unlikely anytime soon). The template change is a question for someone else, but if you incorporate your template into the New Jersey article, I will not dispute it so long as the missing information is restored.Rblaster 20:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual channel numbers are not the same as the actual over-the-air channel numbers, which define the frequency the station is licensed to broadcast over by the FCC. Cable companies have used channel mapping for years to make certain channels appear to be on others via use of channel processing and/or set-top boxes in conjuction with addressable controllers. This article is not concerned with where the channel can be made to "appear" to be. The fact is (to give one example) that WNJB New Brunswick analog channel 58 (UHF) transmits its digital signal on channel 8 (VHF). I have worked with their engineers on a number of issues and I can attest that they intend to brand as channel 8 after the transition, not 58. I can't say the same thing for channel 2, WCBS-DT, which may continue to brand as channel 2. But their digital signal is channel 56, and the article is intended to reflect where you would pick it up over-the-air, not the 'dial position' that you personally assign to it on your equipment, and certainly not where you will find it from your satellite or cable provider, bcause they can assign nearly any channel number (provided the station agrees). I'm telling you this as someone with a 30+ year cable/broadcast engineering background and the credentials to prove it. -Thanks. Rblaster 03:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks real good now - you did an excellent job on updating and correcting missing/incorrect information. Sometime when I get a chance, I'll try to make some of the LPTV info more consistent (there was only a couple translators listed and your revisions made this better by including more of them). I'd like to either remove all of them (unlikely) or include the rest (likely) so they are all treated equally. Thanks again! Rblaster 18:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand about the FCC license app date and already knew that. Even so, in the example you cited, KXRM-TV, the on-air date, 1/22/85, was not the license app date, 3/21/85. How do you verify that the station signed on 1/22/85? The standard for Wikipedia is not necessarily truth, but verifiability. Otherwise, any schmoe could put any date as the sign-on date, which is actually what Dingbat2007 and all of his/her sockpuppets are doing. Nor can you just assume that electronically-filed apps coincide with the start of program testing.

Dan Howell's proposed solution on the project talk page is a good one. Have separate template entries for founded date and on-air date. It seems that you, Dan, NeutralHomer and I are the only ones who really give a rat's rear end about this issue, so if you're in favor, let's just go ahead and change the template to show both dates. I'm even willing to give preferential placement to the on-air date over the founded date. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you any information about this Stadium? Or delete the article... ? --Atamari 12:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of any discussion on the matter (whether or not that was because I haven't been around or don't pay as much attention to radio articles I'm not sure) - but my understanding (from looking at Wikiproject Radio) was that it was preferable to use a station name, and failing that a callsign.

Moving 105.7 ABC Darwin - a station that hasn't used the title 8DDD at all AIUI seems a slightly illogical move. For the TV station articles it makes sense because there is no other way of referring to them, but radio stations are a bit different in my view. timgraham 06:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the 'mentioning ACMA game' (as it were) got involved with the TV station articles was because they were always named after their callsigns - radio stations however are a mixed bunch. From what I can see ACMA often mention both the callsign and 'on-air ID' for each station (like [1]) I've lost the link, but the other day I read at the WP:RADIO site (or a page related to it) that radio station articles should use the name of the radio station first, or failing that (or if the radio station uses the callsign as its name - like 3AW) use the callsign.

There's also the issue of being able to find articles - if I was looking for the article on Nova 100, I would look for 'Nova 100' rather than its callsign 3MEL (which might even be what I'm looking to find out). The same applies for 3CRR/107.9 ABC Ballarat, Mix 101.1/3TTT and many others.

Out of interest - has there been any discussion about the names that I've missed? I wouldn't want to be bringing up something that's already been settled. timgraham 09:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you're still modifying stuff (at least that I see anyway) in infoboxes..I was just wondering if you'd noticed my message? It'd be good if it could be talked over between the interested parties if that is the case.

I would interpret this as meaning that if the station has a 'normal' name that should be used first. timgraham 11:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely on NBN Television. Great job there. Auroranorth (!) 03:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NWM! Unless you're going to make it into a paragraph complete with references and so on the information isn't really appropriate or relevant to the article. If you're planning on doing a paragraph there should be an 'availability' section for it to go into as with most other Australian TV articles. timgraham (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Man. Regarding John Ondrasik: categories don't go on a redirect page. See WP:R#Categories for redirect pages. They have to go on the target page... although I would agree with you probably that it looks strange to categorize a "stage name" (Five for Fighting) in this way.. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... hmmm, maybe I am being hasty with my comment above. It perhaps does make sense to do what you are doing, to allow for the listings to show the person's name at the category page. Anyway, if you use edit summaries, that would make it clearer what you are doing. At first I thought you were just blanking content from Five for Fighting. Happy editing! --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's true they are notable in the sense they are well-known enough to be in wikipedia - but there's an ongoing issue with the Americo-centricity of the birth and death listings in individual year articles. Someone who only has a stub article shouldn't really be listed in these sections. Deb (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. Only a sub-set of the deaths and births for a year can be listed in the year and date pages - there isn't room for a comprehensive list. The births and deaths shown should be a representative sample, not just a list of minor American actors and singers. Deb (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Why have you changed all the Australian radio stations from their name to their generally unknown callsign? I must say that even though radio stations have callsigns which ACMA, radio in Australia isn't like the US - FM stations would almost never refer to their callsign on-air, it's always the brand name. (note: please reply on this page, and not on my [temporary] IP address's talk page) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.109.169 (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it you're right. Although I would prefer them to be named after the radio station name, I guess it makes sense to call them by their callsigns. I think, though, that it would be good if on things like Template:Melbourne radio, the stations were named after their branding. 203.208.109.169 (talk) 04:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's naming convention precludes the radio station article renaming which you undertook in the past couple of months. In Australia, almost without exception FM stations are not known by their call signs, and in some cases AM stations are not known by their callsigns either.

According to WP:NC#Broadcasting:

"Radio and television stations in countries where call signs are customarily used, such as North America, should always be titled with the official call sign as assigned by that country's regulatory authority..."

Despite the situation in Australia in the past, call signs are no longer customarily used in Australia, except in AM broadcasting. The following portion of the naming convention specifies the convention to be used for Australian radio stations:

"In places with a mix of call signs and station names, such as most of Central or South America, the station name should normally be used, except when the call sign is well-known."

I am now going through the articles which you moved, and renaming them where appropriate. If you wish to undertake such a wide-ranging renaming of Australian-related articles in future, I encourage you to first engage in discussion about it somewhere appropriate, like the Australian WikiProject discussion page. - Mark 13:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The table chart I introduced for this article (and I also plugged in for a few other statewide PBS articles) is very simple to gauge, and doesn't use a great deal of space. If anything else were added, such as an additional column, or the unnecessary-for-here W, then the entire table becomes compromised.

Also, the sign-on dates in my version were taken from the Broadcasting and Cable Yearbook, so unless I misread them, that is what they are. Obviously there is a conflict there, so that needs to be addressed. But the table format should remain the way it is with no further alterations. Rollosmokes (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have been identified as having added or removed direct external map service links in articles[2]. There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links#Issues with inclusion or exclusion of map service links about which should be done, and some more opinions would be good to find community consensus. --Para (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back to adding WMCN-TV Atlantic City as analog channel 53 again, huh? We already hashed this out in September, 2007, and I thought it was resolved. The station is digital only. Really. I'm not lying. Go to the Wikipedia article on the station, and you will see for yourself. Then, you can follow the link to the FCC database on this station. It was one of the stations that went full digital early on. Please, please - do not change the article with this incorrect information again. It will be much appreciated. Rblaster (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an occasional viewer of this station, it still uses 44 as a digital TV virtual number. The FCC record should still reflect this. --CRiyl (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have separated KPOL from the KHRR article, since I believe if a silent station is sold from one party to another while silent, I consider the previous incarnation separate from the current one as it was under completely different ownership and management from the time before it went dormant (in KPOL's case, 1989) than it was when the frequency signed back on (in KHRR's case, 1992). New World Man (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation. It has been consensus of this group that a station's article belongs with its license, and although KPOL went silent before being resurrected as KHRR, it is the same license, and therefore, the same station. KPOL is part of KHRR history, and should remain part of the article. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WNHT in New Hampshire has an article separate from WPXG, though both WNHT and WPXG have the exact same FCC facility ID (in their case, 48406). That license was also sold while silent, therefore I interpret that as being separate stations. New World Man (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That article should be merged with WPXG. There is no television station WHNT in the FCC database. In addition, you have found one example where a silent station was sold and a new article created for the new programming. There are countless others that retain the same article, as they should.

Just as with virtual channels vs. actual channels with DTV, the information presented should line up with the expectations of the average reader, not "experts" like you and me. The average reader knows nothing about WNHT or KPOL; only WPXG and KHRR (if even that). An average reader would not think of looking for an article under the old calls. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I retract my assertion that WNHT should be merged with WPXG. WPXG, the current station, is merely a satellite station which does not have its own article, and the WNHT material is unrelated to the primary station, WBPX. Furthermore, WNHT has signficant documented history and can stand alone as its own article. None of these conditions apply to KHRR/KPOL. KHRR is a standalone station and has its own article. KPOL is an undocumented article stub that does not assert its own notability, making it a candidate for speedy deletion, should someone notice it. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to SafeTV, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. --Maniwar (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While you've been doing a good job updating the infoboxes in TV station articles, could you please remember to re-Wikify Independent station (North America) for present and former independent stations? Thanks. Rollosmokes (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I only Wikify names of actual networks and systems in the "Affiliation" field. To me, independent means it's not a member of, or affiliated to, any network or system."

However, there is an article on independent stations, and the links should be utilized. Rollosmokes (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I'll Wikilink "independent station" in the article text, but not in the infobox."

You can't do it in one place and not in the other, that isn't fair. These are present and former independent stations; there is an article on independent stations; and the links are important and should be utilized -- period. This wasn't a problem before, and there's no reason to make it a problem now. Your view of the term shouldn't be imposed on the rest of us who edit these articles. Rollosmokes (talk) 07:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So please stop behaving as if you -- and only YOU -- are allowed to control anything and everything that goes into them. Rollosmokes (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It seems like you're the only one here complaining about things like using the legal name of a station owner or whether The CW Network should be called "The CW" or just "CW" (consensus says "The CW" with the word "The"). However, I do see others linking "independent station" in the infobox, so I'll stop arguing with you on that point - however, I still don't think "independent" should be capitalized."

We can go back-and-forth all you want, but I'm just rtying to keep everything on the straight-and-narrow. I'm not the one who ignores an article on independent stations and refuses to restore the link. I'm also not the one who ignored the consensus against the City of license entry (which I'm against, and so are a few others), which I removed from KOVR. The "The" thing is all about proper use of grammar, as I have noted before. The same goes for the capitalization in Independent. I try not to write improperly, and I would hope others would understand that. So, take a chill pill. Cool? Rollosmokes (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join a discussion on the aforementioned city of license debate on WT:TVS. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 14:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing just that with WCTX, KMBC-TV, and other articles: after you change the infobox format, you seem to claim some kind of ownership to the whole article. This is getting tiredsome. Please stop nitpicking and changing things unnecessarily. Thanks. Rollosmokes (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are unusual or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in WNYA. There is a Manual of Style that should be followed. Thank you. – i123Pie _bio^contribs 12:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a frequent contributor (or vandal patroller) to the days of the year articles (WP:DAYS), your comments on the current state of the proposed guideline for that project would be greatly appreciated. Discussion is taking place here. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 18:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this diff, you never finished the listing process. However, you're trying to list a category for deletion, not an article, so you're in the wrong venue anyway. If you want the category to be listed for deletion, it should go to Categories for Deletion instead. If you need help listing the category at Categories for Deletion, please let me know. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC) Never mind, I see that it was actually a redirect. I fixed the listing for you and took it to Redirects for deletion, which is where redirects go; see here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with improving the infoboxes, but there is such a thing as too much information. I'm simply removing what I consider bloat. Including satellite stations just make the infoboxes very large. How about adding the satellite information on tables in the article itself like in WAPA-TV? Kimmykun (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to revert anymore of your (in my opinion, unnecessary) changes. It's just getting ridiculous. I'm simply going to take it up with the TV project and see what they think. Kimmykun (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It appears that you've added columns about "virtual channels" and "physical RF channels from 2009" to at least the South Carolina and North Carolina channel pages. Is there any case in which the virtual channel number is completely different from either the analog channel or the digital channel? If not, that column seems to be redundant. It seems that the VC number is almost always the same as the existing analog channel. Does "physical RF channel from 2009" mean the channel the station will occupy after the changeover to digital-only? Your phrasing is unclear. If that's what you mean, is there any case in which that channel number is different from both of the existing channels? It seems as though you've created two additional columns of information which was adequately conveyed by the existing material. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks. JTRH (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As has been said by other users here, the information is overkill. Just because the page is here doesn't mean that every last scrap of information needs to be included in the article. How about just a link to the FCC database to query for that information? 99% of people will not be interested in satellite coordinates of the transmitters. You've got to consider what is vital data and what is not. But, based on your past history, as far as I can tell, this is a difficult line of thinking for you to understand. Nicholasm79 (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I'm tired of going back after you and re-Wikifying/capitalizing "Independent" in the infobox. As I explained to you before, the link should be provided to the article, as it is relevant (despite what you may believe). Remember: You don't own the infoboxes. Rollosmokes (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see the need of having satellite stations in the infobox. They take too much space and elevate their importance to that of the main station when all they do is just repeat the signal. But if you really need to have satellite station information in the article, then make a table for it like on WAPA-TV. Also, the infoboxes you edited already have too much information, so when you add the information of another station on top of that, it's far too much. And to be honest, like Nicholasm79 said, most people won't care. And those who do, can easily query the FCC database. Kimmykun (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding empty fields to the infoboxes. The box will function just fine if something isn't filled in or not added to the infobox entirely. All it adds is extra load time and article heft that just isn't needed when we need to keep it within 32kb. If someone wants to fill in the field, they can click on the infobox entry in the templates section below and go from there, but fields like other channels aren't needed if that station's only been on one channel. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 10:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get the answer you were seeking, as you removed your comment on my talk page? If not, the template was nominated for deletion, and being an improper use of a template, I knew it would be deleted, so I decided to get an early jump on removing the references, forgetting that it was also linked to a category. I can add the category references back to the articles, but not all of them tonight. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be in your debt if you could add those categories back to the articles. Go through my contributions to see which articles I changed, but there are about 60. Replacing the template references with text didn't take long, but I think adding the categories might. I'll check back tomorrow night and finish what you're not able to get to. Thanks. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read what I had to say? I am keeping your additions, but I removed the empty entries in the infoboxes you needlessly edited because they will never, ever be filled in and waste bytespace that can better be utilized in the article. Please do not do this again against the consensus of WP:TVS, as we have already told you multiple times not to do this. I have reverted your edits adding the empty information, and if they are reverted I will be seeking administrative action against you. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 21:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then just add those four lines and move on; there was nothing wrong with the boxes at all where you need to reorganize the whole thing and add empty text. It is organized quite fine and doesn't need any changes. Also I find the BIA links uninformative and basically giving the same information listed in the article; it's redundant. Besides that, it's a commercial database, unlike the FCC and Radio Locator (which although it is a commercial operation does provide plenty of information). Nate • (chatter) 01:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So do the websites of the television stations themselves, which are usually updated much more often if there's a change than BIA, which is inherently subject to not being updated if a change is made. We don't need to link to every bit of detail for a television station. Keep it general, keep it brief, keep it concise. We're an encyclopedia first and foremost, and we should keep it that way. Nate • (chatter) 02:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have enough external links as it is, and as I just said, we don't need to provide every piece of information possible. Just keep it simple, please. That's what we're trying to tell you.

As for a station which doesn't have a website; the address can be found through the FCC link, or a simple Google search. These days only the smallest of stations do not have a website. If you do want to use the BIA links though, first, build a consensus with TVS editors and see if it will work. Nate • (chatter) 02:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You talk to us on TVS and bring up the BIA links and see if anyone wants them added, not just put them in without a discussion. The FCC templates were added through the same collaboration, and it should be no different if you want to add this one to station articles. Nate • (chatter) 05:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term "footballer" (or "football player") is used generically to refer to someone who plays Association football (soccer), rugby league, rugby union, Australian rules football, American football, Canadian football etc. In reference to Deaths in 2008, nationality is also reported. We can't really describe someone as an Australian Australian footballer, so footballer is linked to Australian rules football in order to explain the code. The same process is applied to American players of American football. For example, see the entry for Mel Agee at Deaths in June 2008#15. Regards, WWGB (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article WPJT-DT, 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. Undeath (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bay and Basin FM, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bay and Basin FM. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Eastmain (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Travel Channel.gif. 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) 05:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent cleanup to December 11. In the future, please use an edit summary so that all of those who have that on our watchlists know it wasn't one of the frequent nonconstructive additions such as

• 1957 - User:Matchups, American Wikipedia contributor.
  

Ma^t_chups 19:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've noticed that you've been changing the links so that they repeat themselves, this is incorrect. Please see User_talk:Emarsee#Infobox web links. --Emarsee ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 22:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you offer me some evidence of that? I'm not saying I don't believe you, just that I would like some affirmation that there are enough stations named this way that it's an entrenched standard, because I do sincerely think (TV station) would be clearer. (Since you seem to have been around Wikipedia for awhile, I'm sure you can understand how when you're looking at a list of stations, all of which end with -TV except for one that ends with (TV), which was the case when I looked at one of the categories WAVE (TV) belongs to, it's easy to think that the anomaly is due to some user who didn't know how to name the page.)

Also, since you seem to work on these pages a lot, perhaps you'd know how to correct the external link at the bottom of WAVE (TV) that does call the station WAVE-TV; that was another thing that made me think the title was an error. I looked at it but it's some kind of template; perhaps the template itself should be changed, if it's going to automatically call any TV station "XXXX-TV" whether the "-TV" belongs there or not. Propaniac (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I skimmed several different pages of that list and literally found only one other station with the (TV) disambiguater (WAFF (TV)). Ironically, the link for WAVE on the W- list actually goes to WAVE, which is a redirect to the dab page, instead of WAVE (TV). There seem to be very few stations which fit the dual requirement of lacking the -TV suffix, and requiring disambiguation in the title. All I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense to adhere rigidly to a standard if the standard is only used on, like, five articles. If you know of a particular place on Wikipedia, such as a Project Talk page, where this sort of thing is hashed out, I'd be glad to know of it and may address the issue there. Propaniac (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, looking at those categories convinced me that there are at least more than a few stations with (TV) in the article title. I would still like to know whether there is any place on Wikipedia where the issue would be discussed, or if you're simply maintaining the standard on your own. Propaniac (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Starfucker 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 a band or musician, 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 musical topics.

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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Bongomatic 17:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert edits I made to the Wyoming PBS article. All of the information I added comes straight from the FCC and is accurate. All of the Wyoming main PBS stations will or already have digital services. Also, the new transition date is June 12, not February 17th, which is in the past. Please do not revert my edits unless you have substantial reasons to do so. --milonica (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice that you added that start dates for each of the state-based stations back in December, I think. Please note that it's accepted practice not to blue-link dates unless the date article has germane relevance to the topic. The guideline is at MOSNUM. Tony (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the subchannels from the List of television stations in Arizona article? Powergate92Talk 23:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should list all the subchannels not just the ones with well-known networks. Powergate92Talk 00:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-sorry about the mistake, I must have confused the official call sign with the licensee name. Though, it is a bit confusing, even with the directions at wp:naming conventions, maybe those directions could be improved a little? --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, New World Man. You have new messages at Aviator006's talk page.
Message added 03:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Aviator006 (talk) 03:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, New World Man. You have new messages at Aviator006's talk page.
Message added 03:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Aviator006 (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, New World Man. You have new messages at Aviator006's talk page.
Message added 16:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Aviator006 (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of fictional television shows. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

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 fictional television shows (3rd 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) 01:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed previously whether to rename the Star Trek TOS article to simply Star Trek, but kept TOS at the end of it. The reasons can be checked out in that article's talk page, in the mean time I undid your edits to Star Trek episodes where you'd renamed a Wikilink to make it look like Star Trek was the name of an actual television show article. WikiuserNI (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_radio_station_callsigns_in_Western_Australia&action=historysubmit&diff=389772671&oldid=389387513 offers no rationale for removing a legitimate addition - please explain SatuSuro 05:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the lead sentence to clarify that - and also there is so little anywhere about the former SW system that the ABC had - its going back in - cheers - until some time somebody makes a separate article about SW in Australia - thanks for responding - edit summaries are always a good idea - cheers SatuSuro 06:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the article - I have found so little about the ABC 'internal Australian usage' of the 40's to 80's SW radio system easily - however I do have the details from some very partial records - if it is not going to tie in with other australian state lists - I will try in a week or two to find a separate article /list for it - if I can find the info - cheers SatuSuro 06:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article KBNY 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/KBNY 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 good 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. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Just a friendly reminder to please use edit summaries as much as possible. It's just common courtesy as it really saves time for other editors when reviewing articles histories. Thanks. -- œ^™ 03:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reversed your edit on the Deaths page. Our policy in place for Territories is that we list the Nationality and the Territory both for entries. Puerto Rico is a United States Territory and therefore it should be listed as American Puerto Rican (or Indian territories if the case may be). Further examples are Chinese Tibetan, Hong Kong and Macau; British overseas territories such as the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Bermuda, etc. Spanish Territories such as Basques or individual state activists like the Catalans. Canadian territories such as Indians or Quebecois. Denmark territories such as Greenland or the Faroe Islands.

It would also be helpful if you could write a line about what you are doing when you are editing. That is what the Edit Summary box is for. Thanks and happy Wiki'ing.Sunnydoo (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on 3PB 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ukexpat (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 3PB 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/3PB 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. ukexpat (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Riyad Mahrez, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. GiantSnowman 09:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding list categories to non-list articles. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:31, 23 November 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) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, New World Man. 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]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect George Michæl. Since you had some involvement with the George Michæl redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nevé–selbert 16:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of television stations in Alaska by city of license has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Completely redundant small subset of List of television stations in Alaska

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Hello, New World Man. 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]

See WP:RCAT. We don't use categories on redirects and this one does not meet any of the exceptions. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, New World Man. 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]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 3SWR. Since you had some involvement with the 3SWR redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:57, 9 June 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]

Hello, New World Man

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Govvy and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've proposed an article that you started, 3EA, for deletion because it meets one of the relevant criteria and I believe that the article obviously and uncontroversially does not belong in an encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to prevent the deletion:

2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Govvy}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Govvy (talk) 13:42, 21 March 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) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article KLEP 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/KLEP 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.

Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect TEN10 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 9#TEN10 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 162 etc. (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ten10 is also being discussed there. Jay (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Xi Mude 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/2023 October 3 § Xi Mude until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Abishe (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lacking secondary sources, fails WP:GNG.

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. AusLondonder (talk) 12:38, 9 April 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) 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]