If you leave me a message, I will reply here also, so please watch this page.

Who keeps editing the external links page???????? And why do you do it? And if you have the "authority" to do so [moderator], then what are your criteria for not removing links????

What gives I came across this site thinking this was really something great but if you got assholes like you taking out usefull links then what is the point of having one place where anyone can find good information. I demand that you be more reasonable or I will make several websites and post in every forum that I come across to not use Wikipedia becouse it is not really a site for the people but a site for Philip.

• Wikipedia is not a link farm. I suggest you read this and this and get back to me. --PhilipO 22:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree maybe Wikepedia really isnt all that.

• Hey PhilipO, this site is not a spam http://www.oldapps.com you may visit it by your self and check it out. I just wanted to help the users. It has all the original version of popular software. you may contact us at oldapps (at) oldapps (dot) com

Hello. Thanks for your message - I understand your wish to have your site added to these pages, but they are not sufficiently relevant. Wikipedia is not a link farm and the consensus (which I agree with) is that these links do not belong here. Thanks --PhilipO 06:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of Vodafone entries you have made is quite irritating. I see your reasoning from the point of view of someone who has not seen the articles/reports in question, but there is a lot of talk on the web at the moment about the integrity of this company and they must be delighted that you are standing up for them.

• Standing up for them? That's a funny thing to say ;-) Talk on the web is next to meaningless as a source. --PhilipO 20:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you at least consider restoring the October 2005 Which magazine article - which caused a great stir - as valid information/news? You can't link to Which? unless you subscribe.

Wikipedia is one of the few media where the immoral behaviour of large companies can be made public.

In conventional media their critics can be silenced by the promise of enhanced advertising revenue. Wiki does not rely on Vodafone's advertising for income - and yet it is serving the company well with such an obsequeious entry, supported by you.

Why?

• Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a soap box. It is an experiment to create an encyclopedia and not to expose the questionable behaviour of companies. The article is not obsequeious - it is factual. Seems like you have a serious problem with them. Well then, don't use their cell phone service. It's a free market. Cheers --PhilipO 20:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a free market if people have access to the information they need to make their economic choices. I would say here information has been suppressed - but as you say, you are a deletionist.

You have misspelt 'obsequious'.

Thanks for your reply.

• Wow, you really have it in for Vodafone, don't you? ;-) Cheers. --PhilipO 14:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently added a number of links to coinop.org to game pages. PhilipO has taken it upon himself to delete these, for the "commercial" aspect and similarity to other sites.

You have kept links to MobyGames. MobyGames has ads to amazon, etc. How is this any different than my 1 ad for game sticks?

Also, we have SLEWS of repair and technical information on each game for collectors, something that the KLOV isn't consistent on (and is impossible to search this information) and MobyGames doesn't have either.

Can you please explain the rationale behind keeping links to Mobygames and not to coinop.org. Thanks.

• Hello - thanks for your message. The MobyGames link has been there before I began editing these pages - it seems the community is happy with that link - there is even a template for it. Your message implies that you are associated with coinop.org - Wikipedia strongly frowns apon people adding links to their own sites - it is against policy. Furthermore, you have added links from multiple articles to your site - this can be construed as linkspamming, which again is against policy - see Baby Pac-Man, Ms. Pac-Man and Pac-Man for example. If you do have specialized knowledge about arcade games why not contribute directly to the articles themselves and instead of simply adding external links? That would be a great way to expand Wikipedia. Other editors will also revert additions like your previous edits. Cheers --PhilipO 20:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I had posted what I thought was a relavent news topic about a petition I recently hosted but you indicated you had taken it down becuase "Page isn't the place for online petitions". Your comment is here:

[1]

My four day petition is here (I figure you are swamped and can't easily recall what it was you were even looking at):

[2]

So if this page about Intelligent Design is not the place for announcing these results, where would your recommend?

Thanks.

Hello - thanks for your message. In my opinion, a link to your online petition doesn't belong on the page. Wikipedia has a policy regarding link addition. While it is an admirable goal, I don't see how an online petition adds informational value to the article about this topic. Links should be reserved for relevant sites that contain relevant information about the topic being discussed - otherwise articles risk being swamped in links. Cheers --PhilipO 15:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Phillip. The reason I was thinking this was relevant was because it is not the ongoing petition that is the "content" but significance of what that petition represented to the scientific community. What that petition did was tap into a well spring of the scientific community that was previously untapped. My response rate was 1,200% higher and 640,000% faster than the Discovery Institutes (which is the top link). The page(s) with my statement about the petition and what it means in relation to ID along with the 12,000 signatories represents a very unique piece of information that I expect other will want to know about who are involved with this discussion. What I think I will do is a sentence to the paragraph about the Discovery Institute and their petition (which is one of their most frequent cited documents). I'll see if that fits into the content better than just a "link" (which I agree with you would just overwhelm the wiki). - R. Joe

Hello, Philip - I'm not the one repeatedly adding the bomberonline link, but I am a snowboard carver, and I have to say bomberonline really is the de facto base of alpine snowboarding in the US (online or offline). The size of the sport is so small that pretty much the only way to get equipment or information is online, and almost every carver is on the bomber site. Is there no way to include the link? Normally I'd be against the link myself (you may notice I've deleted some bogus external links from that page as well), but as far as I can tell, there is no other place that I know about to get information about the sport (e.g. unless you are at one of a few resorts in the country or on a racing team, you cannot get professional instruction. There are only a handful of stores in the country - I know of 1 in Colorado, 1 in Vermont, and 0 in our home state of California - which sell alpine/carving equipment. No snowboard magazines review equipment). Also, the bomberonline site has a large number of actual non-commercial, informative articles (see: [3] or [4]), as well as a highly active message board with snowboard carvers that actually get together once a year in Colorado for a week to ride. Also, while it is a commercial site, they also take their role as the heart of the sport seriously, and, despite the apparent conflict of interest, even host (favorable) reviews of direct competitors ([5] - (Catek is their primary competitor)). Anyways, just wanted to get your thoughts on this. Yes, it's commercial - but there is no other better source of information on carving/alpine snowboarding available. Thanks! Kjl 02:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - thanks for the message. Well, you seem to know more about snowboarding than me judging from your contributions - I've been up in the Sierras a bit, but that's it. I was reverting the links 'cos they did seem commercial, but I will defer to your judgement in this topic! I did look at the site at your request, and while they are selling stuff in reasonably low key way, there is plenty of in-depth, useful info there too. Go ahead and add the link back - I won't revert, and let's ensure no bad-faith commercial links get added in the future. Cheers. --PhilipO 03:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, I have not yet made that many edits to that many pages yet, so I often keep an eye out on the ones I have, like the snowboarding page :) That page in particular gets a lot of badly written, bogus information. I wonder if it's because the snowboarding demographic is so young... Kjl 03:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Philip,

The TOEFL page is very outdated. I added some new information but you deleted it as spam because it had an outbound link. I added the information again, without the link, but you deleted it again for the same reason.

Can you tell me how I can update the page, without my changes being deleted?

Thanks,

Ken

Hello - thanks for the message. Firstly, you are right. I did revert the second time without checking that the link was in the second edit. My bad. I started reverting because this page is prone to spam and your first edit was very similar to this one which was also reverted previously and came from the same IP address. By all means update the page if you have new info - just be sure to make sure it doesn't look commercial, or someone else might go and do the same thing as I did! While you're here, why not create an account? Perhaps you have specialized knowledge about this stuff to share? Doing it with an account is much more fun. ;-) Cheers. --PhilipO 03:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philip, there are many links to sites like www.gtalkprofile.com on the "Google Talk" page. GTalk Profile is not a commercial in that it has no advertising and does not charge for its services. I don't understand why these other sites are listed but GTalk Profile cannot be listed? You can contact me at (deleted) if you have any questions or I will look here.

Hello - thanks for your message. Actually you are right, so I pared down the links altogether. Wikipedia has a policy of not being a link farm. However, if the community reaches a consensus that these links should be retained, that's fine with me. I would suggest you open up a topic on adding your link to the page. What do you think? Cheers --PhilipO 23:30, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

OK, that's cool. The only reason we added the link was because of the others that were listed there.

Hi Philip. I added a title to your VfD submission on Sam Liberatore, and added it to the main VfD page. Joyous (talk) 03:24, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Since nobody did it properly, that I can see:

Hello, PhilipO, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 02:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. With the exceptions of trolls and vandals, most revisions can be handled on the discussion pages. Let me know if I can be of help. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 04:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I have just accidentally removed a VfD tag you have put on this article. sorry. I have included the tag again, but, with some google search, it seems like this is a genuine article, even if quite incomplete and not properly formatted. I have noted that you did not set up an article entry in the VfD Log, as required by the VfD procedure, either. You can complete the VfD procedure as described in WP:VFD or give the article another chance and remove the VfD tag. I would suggest the article to be moved to Asuka Sakamaki, and I would also like to remind you that poorly formatted articles can always be improved and don't need to be deleted. -Poli (talk • contribs) 06:16, 2005 July 19 (UTC)

Is there a reason you've put VfD tags on certain articles (Circular redundancy for example) instead of listing them for speedy deletion? -- Essjay · Talk 23:04, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you can use speedy tags; it puts the article in a category that we admins can check and then delete the articles. If you list them at VfD then (I, at least) won't speedy them. Admins don't generally use the tags unless they are unsure if the page should be deleted under the CSD criteria and want another admin to look at it; if we're sure something is a speedy, we just delete it. -- Essjay · Talk 23:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention in keeping this article healthy. :) --nothingxs 06:49, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I'm removing people's degrees listed after their names, since this information is usually redundant with the article's content, and while titles like "Sir" and "CM" are appropriate, university degrees are a bit much. -- 02:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help & support, Philip--JimWae 06:35, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

Fvw - you might like to take a look at the discussion on this issue at Vandalism in Progress - if you aren't away of it already. All Hardy Boys articles are affected. --PhilipO 20:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what brought it to my attention. Your best bet is probably to put up a request for page protection, I'd protect it myself but stupidly got involved with the edit war instead and I'd rather avoid the grey areas of conflict of interest. --fvw* 20:57, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

No problem, just like to keep things in discussion order :)

You understand what I am implying, right? Flonga appears to be a sockpuppet for FWDixon -- PhilipO 02:04, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure what the proper Wikiquette is and will be doing some reading of policy and guideline pages. Thanks! -- Sitearm | Talk 02:10, 2005 August 24 (UTC)

Ok, I've read some more. I notice you've suggested centralizing the discussion on the FWdixon talk page. However, I just checked and part of my note there was deleted without comment. So maybe a different page needs to be started to consolidate the issues and a workable community response. I am not volunteering to start the page but I will post to it. Thanks! -- Sitearm | Talk 05:23, 2005 August 25 (UTC)

I noticed you reverted all of Liontamer's recent edits to many video game articles, including but not limited to the addition of links to relevant OCR pages. The edits seem to be valid (not linkspam), or at least some are... Why did you revert them all? Rmrfstar 04:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The mass adding of links to any website is strongly discouraged. In this case, I would consider it external link spamming. Perhaps some of the edits have good intentions and perhaps some are relevant to some articles, however, for the ones I witnessed, they were not. I'll attempt to keep an eye on this in the future. K1Bond007 04:35, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me however, that the links inserted into the articles were almost always relavent, usually a link to a remix of the game music. The links were to a page on OverClocked Remix which had to do with that specific game, the equivalent of adding an appropriate IMDB link on every movie article. Maybe we should think about reverting the reverting on an individual article basis. -- Rmrfstar 11:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There is a big difference between The Internet Movie Database - one of the oldest and best known film-related sites on the web - and OverClocked Remix. IMDB includes general info about the movies, and is worthy of inclusion. Each arcade game has its equivalent - the link to the Killer List of Video Games. I don't have any issue with those links. I would have an issue with someone coming along and adding a link to hundreds of film sites pointing to a site dealing with film music (or remixes of them thereof) specifically. I already spoke with Liontamer about adding it to video game music, which I think is a good place to for a link. I believe we need more consensus on this issue before reverting other links.--PhilipO 15:51, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hardy Boys/Nancy Drew/3RR/Linkspam/Sockpuppet/Meatpuppet/Wikistalking mess thingy.

Are you keeping a close watch on it, or just passing through?

If you're seeing it through to a conclusion, I'd appreciate it if you would let me know when a consensus gets reached. The discussion is spread across at least five different locations. It's too much of a pain to follow it all, so I'm just avoiding them on RC patrol. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I'll check FWDixon in the morning UK time. Hope you get a solution by then.

I noticed you're also embroiled in Votes_for_deletion/Larry_H._Parker. Does the phrase glutton for punishment mean nothing to you? ;-)

--GraemeL ^(talk) 23:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the heads up, and for your dedication to seeing it to a conclusion. Keep up the good work!  :) --Alan Au 18:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and I'd be happy to lend a hand with cleaning things up. --Alan Au 18:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Adding my thanks for consolidating the discussion. I was losing track of what was being discussed on which page. I agree that FWDixon's talk page is the best place to talk, since the issue spans so many different articles. Joyous (talk) 19:32, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I posted another comment on this subject that may be of interest to you. Thanks for taking care of this. If there is anything I can do to help you, do let me know. Rl 17:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Got your note and posted input here. Thanks! -- Sitearm | Talk 19:03, 2005 August 25 (UTC)

For your tireless efforts to get the Hardy Boys link spamming problem resolved, I award you this barnstar. Good job! maltmomma 00:19, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Rat's poo! maltmomma is too fast: I was about to do this. Joyous (talk) 00:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote, but please notice a vote without rationale may be discounted, or carries less weight than those with rationale. I will be displeased if your vote is wasted, so could you add your reasoning to your vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Little Astrology prince ? Thank you. - BorgQueen 12:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good and fair of you to leave notes re user Gary. I do think a user page should only be used by the user--if I want to sign up and leave my page blank for two years, good for me. However, you were quite polite and attentive when it was pointed out.

In general I think the "second welcome" is often more important the first; often people start stuff and the first thing they see is VfD plus a brusque message from an otherwise worthwhile admin saying "don't do x, y and z cause the rules say so" which seems to be the situation here. Cziko started a list that the rules say he shouldn't have, but English on the Internet is absolutely a logical article, so nice thinking on his part. You haven't actually voted (not that I'm vote-peddling!) but you could at [[6]]. I'm doing the changes tomorrow--I really think a Keep if changed is appropriate and it will be changed. Marskell 22:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, this business of communicating by leaving notes on user pages is a bit strange. You answer comments on your own User page, but that is not what I am doing here.

It makes sense to me that if there is an article on AudioBooks it should have links to cites that have AudioBooks. The article is a stub and needs work, but I don't see how removing potential useful information about where to find audiobooks makes the article any better.

I've left comments for Marksell on his page about English on the Internet and also Portuguese on the Internet. I was actually intending for both to be primarily a collection of resources and I understand that that is not what the Wikipedia is supposed to be. I don't have time now to make them into real articles, so it's fine with me if they are deleted. I have copied them to my on Wiki where I can continue to work on them.

--Gary

Sorry to meddle, allow me to say a few things: PhilipO may have made a simple mistake when he left that message on Gary's user page; it should have been placed on his talk page. I'm sure this wasn't intended to come across in a strange way. Gary, the links to resources you posted are potentially useful – if you don't have time to work on the articles now, you could post some of them on the articles' talk pages as potential sources that other editors can use for expanding the articles. --MarkSweep 04:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I re-worked the article today if anybody's curious: English on the Internet. Sort of generic but decent and could improve. Take care --Marskell 16:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have unprotected some of the pages. I need to leave for a few hours, but I will unprotect more later. Any other administrators reading this are welcome to help. Academic Challenger 23:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw that you've reverted at one point the Jodie Foster article. Unfortunately it was all in vain. You are not the only one who's done it. There is a very persistent anonymous person who is inserting many personal views (mainly negative ones) in the article, especially some regarding Foster's commercials in Japan. Because of this situation, on the talk page of Jodie Foster's article there is a Final vote about including/not including the advertising info. If you have the time, please state your opinion there. Best regards! Tavilis 18:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to. Getting started now. Joyous (talk) 01:16, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Done. I didn't unprotect the main Hardy Boys article; was that part of the list? Joyous (talk) 01:45, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

No - while the anonymous vandal has agreed to respect the decision re that page and Nancy Drew, maybe we need some time to monitor his behaviour? --PhilipO 02:02, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ok. If you need more admin help, feel free to let me know. I want to say again how impressed I am at how you've coordinated this effort to reach a consensus among warring editors. We need more of that here; I hope you stick around and get administratified yourself. Joyous (talk) 02:05, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

PhilipO: There are still two links to the Bob Finnan web site on Hardy Boys instead of the one agreed. They are:

• The Bayport Times - The Hardy Boys Webzine resolves to
• The Hardy Boys Unofficial Home Page resolves to

I'd recommend deleting the first per the agreement to have only one Bob Finnan link. Since you've recommended that page stay protected would you ask an admin to make the change? Thanks! -- Sitearm | Talk 02:54, 2005 August 30 (UTC)

Philip, I'm reluctant to edit the protected Hardy Boys page to remove the 2nd link, because I've been involved in the discussions about the whole link business, and it might appear to be a conflict of interest. I would be happy to unprotect it and remove the link, but if you want to keep it protected for a bit, you should probably check with a different admin. Joyous (talk) 02:33, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it can always be protected again and Sitearm is correct in pointing out that we did agree to reduce the article to one link. If there is trouble with it, it can always be protected again. If you remove the protection, I (or sitearm, *or* the vandal) will remove the second link. Thanks. --PhilipO 04:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

• • Ok, I've unlocked Hardy Boys, and removed the webzine link. Joyous (talk) 10:56, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks! -- Sitearm | Talk 14:35, 2005 August 31 (UTC)

No more changes will be made by me without concensus. Apologies to all. 69.205.9.31 19:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-encyclopedic" isn't a criterion for speedy deletion I'm afraid, the only ones that count are those listed on WP:CSD. --fvw* 14:03, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to comment that pages not in english aren't supposed to be tagged {{nonsense}}, they should be tagged {{notenglish}} and added to the list of WP:PNT. In particular Rent a car perhaps is better turned into a redirect than speedying delete. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 19:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK - thanks for the note. I will certainly follow that process in the future. Cheers. --PhilipO 19:37, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

PhilipO: If Audible's and AudioVille's website can be put on the Audio books article, why not the ones I added, too. Is it that there should not be too many external links so the first ones to be added or OK but additional ones not?

--Gary Cziko

Gary - Wikipedia has a policy of not simply being a collection of links. There have been issues before with users (particularly anonymous users) adding links to their audio book sites [7] - from this one and individual book articles. This comes across as link spamming. You obviously have an account, so IMHO you're acting in good faith. Audio books has been a target before, that is why I watch this article and have been reverting additions. I assume you don't have any connection with the sites?

Ask yourself do the links add anything more to the site? Is it anything that a user would not find on Google? I will add that the reason I don't remove the links to Audible's and AudioVille is that they were there before I started editing Wikipedia and I am relunctant to change stuff that was on the pages already. Also, I was under the impression that these sites were the biggest names in the business, and perhaps had a reason to be there as a reference. I will admit that I didn't look into this in too much detail. What do you think?

However, this is simply my view, and if a decision is reached by the community that some or all of these links should be added - and perhaps others removed, that's fine with me. A good place to start is to add your links to the Talk:Audio_book page and start a discussion about the link suitability. That way individual editors can weigh in. Cheers --PhilipO 16:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I notice you've reverted the currency meaning of IOUs a few times as vandalism. This is a legitimate definition, if you read the entry on Danny Wallace you'll see a link to the same Citizens Required site that the definitons contained. If you feel the definition shouldn't be there for other reasons, say so. Calling it vandalism isn't accurate and it seems the people trying to add it are new users, who possibly need a little guidance.

See people discussing adding it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/dannywallace/F2307884?thread=931662 . As you are unlikely to have an account at a given random forum, if it's OK, I'll post your response in that thread when you make it?

Hello - thanks for your message. Firstly, since you were acting in good faith, it is obviously not vandalism. That was just my initial reaction. From the text of the addition it was probably a reasonable response, but fair enough, it isn't vandalism. As for its inclusion on the article, I am still not convinced it deserves it. Wikipedia has policies regarding notability, and there is a level that something must reach before it can be included. Otherwise the website risks drowning in questionable information. There are only 2 references to this phrase on the entire searchable internet (see [8]). Including some text about this definition on Danny Wallace's page would be the correct place for this information. If there was an standalone article about this topic, it would certainly have been deleted on these grounds.

However, this is just my opinion. The decision should be reached by consensus. If the community thinks it should be included, that's fine with me. I suggest you open up a discussion about it on the article's . Feel free to share my thoughts with others. Cheers --PhilipO 00:15, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't my edits, I just came across a thread where somebody was complaining about being reverted. I'd agree with you that at this stage, it doesn't merit inclusion. I was trying to defuse what looked like an edit war between a new and over-eager user and and yourself. As it turns out, the person in question has admitted on the forum they have a past history of edit wars, and vandalism as revenge when they don't go his way. I'll still paste your thoughts, for the benefit of more sensible readers who may drop into the thread.

You recently did a revert on the Stephen King page [9], calling it questionable vandalism. For the record, I believe that was the actual line that King said in that episode. At least, the "opened the gates of hell" is defintely right; I don't know about the torturing animals part, though. Hbdragon88 22:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - thanks for your message. Fair enough. Without a reference and the excessive number of exclamations marks, it smacked of vandalism (hence my use of the word "questionable"). Cheers. --PhilipO 02:11, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Greetings,

You've placed a speedy delete tag on this article. Yet, the user is attempting to follow the instructions as laid out on the copyvio notice on the main page. I think the speedy delete tag is too hasty and inappropriate. Allow time for this article to develop; it's just a temp page, and the copyvio notice will not have action taken on it for days yet.

All the best, --Durin 18:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - thanks for the note. Will let it develop so! Cheers. --PhilipO 18:30, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Nice job on the www.philowiki.com link spam. - Tεxτurε 22:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers - when I see the same link from multiple pages, it always sets off alarm bells. --PhilipO 22:23, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

How is it that Sam Sloan already deserves another vfd? The page just went through a vfd last month. 69.181.82.221 00:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - thanks for your message. I have no idea why it is going through another vfd. If it did, and the vote was to keep, then it shouldn't - you should definitely note this on the vote page. However, once the vfd notice goes, Wikipedia policy states that it should not be removed, except by an administrator. I will also add a note to the vote page to this effect. By the way, you continue to add to the article and improve it - just don't remove the note. Cheers.

--PhilipO 00:19, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I came across an article that I don't think is noteworthy. I googled him, and came up with nothing. I don't know how to go about a VFD on this. Can you help me? It regards Jonathan Christian Nesvadba. Thanks. maltmomma 05:28, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hello - the directions are here. Follow these instructions and let me know if it works for you (or not). This procedure was renamed recently from 'Votes for Deletion" to "Articles for Deletion". Article certainly seems like it should be deleted. Cheers. --PhilipO 05:36, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, you made it much easier. I was going around in circles. maltmomma 13:24, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm looking forward to clarifying my definition further and publicizing the project. So many articles are just riddled with self-promoting links. Jdavidb 16:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you further for linking to my page. :) Jdavidb 16:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the homeschooling/beauty pageant guy has shown up before, on a different IP address. And I'm sure he'll show up again. It's been awhile since the last strike, though, I think. Jdavidb 16:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PhilipO, according to Wikipedia:Copyright problems, when you find a new article which is a copyright violation, you should replace the article with the {{copyvio}} notice, instead of adding it. You've done a good job on catching this one, though! Owen× ☎ 17:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK - thanks for pointer. Cheers. --PhilipO 17:56, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I don't disagree with your recent changes to the James Kirk article -- it focused a bit too much on fanon information which goes against the guidelines set out by the Star Trek WikiProject. I do disagree with the rationale that the information be cut because it's citing a book for which there is no article. There is no rule saying a source has to have an article, and a redlink serves as a signal for someone to write an article. I've noticed that a few articles where folks have removed wikilinks for names, topics, etc. because they're redlinks. IMO I don't mind seeing a sea of redlinks because that's a challenge to me and others to make the articles happen. Cheers! 23skidoo 12:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. The main reason I reverted the edits *was* because it did focus too much on fanon - one of the reasons why there was so many red links IMHO. I will definitely rephrase similar edits summaries differently in the future. Thanks. --PhilipO 14:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deleting entire paragraphs. If you find a particular reference or link commerical, remove that. Thanks.

Thanks for your note. These additions are blatantly commercial. They would need serious rephrasing to be acceptable IMHO. --PhilipO 03:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fvw - I see you too have been reverting the addition to this article. User:70.225.174.15 left me an anonymous note telling me to stop. I didn't and justified my reasoning on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look. Cheers. --PhilipO 03:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's how I found out about it, I had your talk page on my watch list. I quite agree with all that, let me know if you need any help should he keep pushing the paragraph though. --fvw* 03:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If you're going to complain of others writing anonymous notes you might sign your own :-P

--fvw* 03:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Touche! I wish there was some way the system would sign automatically on hitting Save Page. --PhilipO 03:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check his edit history - he vandalised Evolution a year ago too - almost certainly the same guy. Guettarda 18:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to the melodrama statement...I am pretty pissed off at this person. Sorry if that may offend you. Molotov (talk) 04:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not offended at all. It's just that we're experimenting here with writing an encyclopedia - nothing more. We're not fighting a war. But hey, the Talk pages are all about letting off steam, right? Cheers, --PhilipO 04:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is...if someone pisses me off they need to know it. I am not going to kiss their butt Molotov (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Seduction community people are back, at WP:VFU#Seduction_Community this time. You might want to voice an opinion. --fvw* 18:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you've reported copyright infringements to WP:CP in the last week, a new measure was recently passed to allow the speedy deltion of new pages that are cut and paste copyvios. Please follow these instructions if you come across this type of copyvio. Thanks. --nixie 00:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant copyright infringements may now be "speedied" If an article and all its revisions are unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider and there is no assertion of permission, ownership or fair use and none seems likely, and the article is less than 48 hours old, it may be speedily deleted. See CSD A8 for full conditions. After notifying the uploading editor by using wording similar to: {{nothanks-sd|pg=page name|url=url of source}} -- ~~~~ Blank the page and replace the text with {{db-copyvio|url=url of source}} to the article in question, leaving the content visible. An administrator will examine the article and decide whether to speedily delete it or not.

Philip, I understand your frustration. My initial hope with the page protection is that it would afford everyone a cooling off period, where you might make some progress on the talk page. But beyond that, it allows me a bright-line "reset" where, once the page is unprotected (and it will be, probably soon), there is a "starting line" so to speak from which I can better watch for 3RR instead of having to comb through back edits. Don't get discouraged. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message - you're right about the cooling off period. I am sure it will soon be pretty clear from the talk page that a consensus has been reached, and further changes on the contention issue will warrant reversion. Cheers. --PhilipO 20:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought maybe some hoax-accuser would revert my stealthy addition to that claim that the 2001 show swayed 20% of the audience, but your approach works just as well. The previous alleged poll of 6% is scary enough. As not-quite-stated in the text, if you phrase the question the right way, you can get 6% of the people to agree to anything you posit. And if 20% had doubts after that 2001 show, then I weep for this nation. I watched the same show, and within 5 minutes I could tell their "case" against NASA was fraudulent. So it's maybe best to just rub out that stupid claim of 20%, as you did. :) Wahkeenah 18:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - the 20% claim should have been removed the moment it was added since it was unsourced. I could not find any reference to it with a Google search, though I did find plenty of references to the 6% statistic and the Gallop poll, so am happy to leave it remain in the article. Cheers --PhilipO 18:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philip, Please stop deleting my link to magician's vocab. It's not a commercial link. The other links on that page are commercial if you care to read them properly. Eg "Magic Words", he is trying to sell his book. It's slow Java, long winded and no relevence to be honest, mostly blank pages but you never deleted it. And most of the others have commercial connotations too. So how can you say my link is commercial any more than anyone elses. Have you actually read it???? It's a work in progress and it already contains 100's of definitions useful for magicians. And it's going to contain loads more too. Thanks for your cooperation. MagicValentina^(scribble)

Hello - thanks for your message. If you actually look at the history [10] of this page you will see I did exactly what you asked before you wrote your message! You are right - the page you are adding isn't commerical and the one I did remove is. However, Wikipedia does have a policy [11] against people adding links to websites they are themselves are creating or working on. If you are the working on this page, it may be removed by other editors. Links should really be added by people who no vested interest in generating traffic to it.

Also, the page you are linking to is bound to have its address changed in the near future - that is the way that the notice board you are using operates. Therefore the link will probably become "dead" in the future. Why not start a new page in Wikipedia called List of conjuring terms or something similar? You seem to have a lot of knowledge to share and that would be the best (and cool) way to do it - you can then link to the new Wikipedia page from Magic. Let me know if you have any questions. --PhilipO 21:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Well OK I edited your new page you made List of conjuring terms cos you said it was cool but really Phillip, I don't know if it is a good idea to have this list on Wikipedia (rather than on another server) because it has a lot of very valuable information in it and magicians who want to be restrictive and don't like sharing anything (a lot of them are like that) will come along and delete it. And then nobody will be able to use it. Also there are magicians on big magic sites in the secret sections saying that Wiki is evil exposure and it should be about what, not how, and some of them may attack the project magic pages. So I thought I'd give you the heads up on that if you are a mod or something. Anywayz, I did the List of conjuring terms like you said but this Wiki stuff is doing my head in a bit cos I'm used to HTML and it's all a bit weird so you can probably tell me if I made a mess of it or linked it in wrong or something. Thanks for your help :)-xxxx --MagicValentina 00:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)--[reply]

It is very difficult for anyone to delete stuff from pages - or even vandalize them - without someone noticing. Look how quickly I saw the link addition to Magic and checked it. You should add List of conjuring terms to your watchlist - that way you will notice any changes and can revert them if necessary. Cheers. --PhilipO 00:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK I think I am getting the hang of this now. But we still have to watch the pages don't we? I thought the software might put it back if someone blanked them. I've done some work on the timeline of magic too. And the new page magically appeared in the magic box which was great but then this guy Krash says the list of conjuring terms is fancruft and it's an ignoranti elonchi, so I guess we can't please everyone huh? That's the trouble with this Wiki thing; you try to do something useful and then someone else doesn't like it.MagicValentina^(talk) --MagicValentina 15:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia: Consensus: "consensus can only work among reasonable editors who are making a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject..."

I'd rather you addressed the concerns I raised on Talk: 1996 Manchester City Centre bombing before reverting my edits. If you look at the edit history, you will see that I have no problem with the bombing being called terrorism, so long as the description is attributed.

Lapsed Pacifist 00:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the talk page speaks for itself. Perhaps you should have discussed your latest reversion [12] on the talk page? --PhilipO 22:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone has gone into more detail than myself. The talk page speaks for us all, but I believe other users are breaching NPOV. Feel free to add your thoughts.

Lapsed Pacifist 12:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PhillipO, I was not aware of the link policy.

Please read this [13] and get back to me. Linking from numerous - and you are linking from many, many pages - to the one address (http://lawyerintl.com/) is simply against policy [14]. It clutters pages and adds questionable value to Wikipedia. If you do believe the site is worthwhile, you could add a single link to a single suitable law page. The editors there (along with you) can discuss its addition. The current additions will be reverted by me and other editors I'm afraid. Cheers. --PhilipO 02:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to keep one link on that I do think is quite relevant and informative to the Wikipedia community. Please check out this link and you will see that is relevant and useful. That is the link in the Black's Law Dictionary page. If you agree please leave it.

OK - I will leave that link alone. You seem to be acting in good faith and it seems like a worthwhile page. As Wikipedia becomes more popular, it is constant target for people embedding links to the articles for advertisement purposes. Their behaviour (on the surface) is very similar to yours and that is why editors were reverting your additions. Any questions, let me know - cheers --PhilipO 03:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PhilipO! Got your note. I used the information at How to archive a talk page

You can customize it a bit to look the way you like. -- Sitearm | Talk 09:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PhilipO, what's the real reason for removing the link to ego4u.com? According to [15] there is no problem adding relevant links without editing the article. -- Netspy 12:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello - thanks for your message. You are correct - there is nothing wrong with adding relevant links to an article. However, Wikipedia is not link farm either. Do you believe that another link to resume writing sites belongs on this page? You seem to spend alot of time simply adding external links to articles on Wikipedia - which is against the spirit of the site. Why not contribute directly to the articles instead? Just my thoughts - however, if you feel this is really a worthy link that adds more than the links that are there already I won't revert it. Cheers --PhilipO 19:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phillip, could you post some links to new editor guidelines and tips as discussed via email this week please? Thanks in advance. --Weeboab

• I added some links to your talk page. Cheers --PhilipO 16:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to find you reverting many linkspams by 70.231.146.237, I was getting tired ;o) I've tidied up many of his earlier ones. Regards, --bodnotbod 16:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PhillipO. I'm a long term user and enthuiast of wikipedia, it's great people like you are removing the spam on wikipedia. However, I strongly disagree with all the reverting you done on my submittals. Let me explain myself and give examples. First, I added a link to slashgisrs.org on GIS. SlashGISRS.org is a popular non-commercial ad-free site for GIS and remote sensing, and you know what, on the wikipedia GIS article, there's commercial links, like Directions Mag, but you removed slashgisrs? I can't understand. There's also a completely useless link to conotea.org on the GIS page that should be removed. Second, you removed the links to ARSIST, a list of earth observation satellites. ARSIST is a very useful GNU Free Documentation list of satellites used by at least hundreds of people in geospatial technologies. This is not a link spam. And finally, you removed the link on slashcode page to slashcode websites (not refering to any other website but slashcode's one). I see this as useful, not useless or spam. What do you think? I am not a spammer. In fact, I give voluntarly about 20-30 hours weekly to the geospatial community, I won't lie to you, it's frustrating to be considered a link-spammer... Thank you for your comprehension and your time helping the community :-) lordsatri

• Hello - thanks for your message. I took a look at your contributions and while it is good to contribute to the pages on Wikipedia, simply adding links to pages is not a very constructive way to enhance the site. Adding a link to the same page from multiple pages on Wikipedia can be legitmately construted as linkspam [16] [17] [18] - other editors may have reverted your additions too. I stronly believe you should add the link from one page on Wikipedia and leave it at that. Otherwise editors might think you are trying to generate traffic to the site. If you do have valuable knowledge about this topic why not add directly to the pages? That would be a great way to improve the articles. As for the other links, I don't tend to remove links that were there already because I don't know their history (unless they are blantanly spam). Cheers --PhilipO 22:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• You said "simply adding links to pages is not a very constructive way to enhance the site": you're absolutely right. You see, right now, I spend so much time on other geospatial-community-related projects (all open and non-commercial of course), I don't plan to really contribute to wikipedia yet. But my team of volunteers is looking to build a geospatial wiki. We are only at the start of the project and our technology choice is not yet determined. We might go with tikiwiki since it has a map module, and this kind of feature is important to the GIS and RS communities :-) Anyway, thanks for your reply. I'll put slashgisrs's link to GIS and RS only. And put back ARSIST's links link too. Regards. lordsatri

I've been long annoyed by the ludicrous list of links on Backgammon but have never had the patience to sort out the good from the bad or the worthwhile from the unnecessary. Good stuff. Palmiro | Talk 01:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Cheers! --PhilipO 02:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, are you withdrawing the Afd, then? Should it be closed out or deleted or something? I like the article but I'll admit I'm slightly ambivalent about it being an article at all. Friday (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, thanks for your message. I thought all I had to do was remove the afd header from the article - what else to I have to do? I was going to put it up because the creator was adding (seemingly) vanity wikilinks to it in 1990s and 2000s, and it seems like his only source for the artcile is himself (judging by his username). These searches seemed to indicate that it should be deleted [19] [20], but this one [21] convinced me otherwise. Cheers --PhilipO 03:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit confused by your edit summary. The afd page itself still exists, but that probably doesn't matter since it isn't linked to from anywhere now. I closed the Afd due to being withdrawn, I hope this was what you wanted. You can view it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-prohibitionism. If you (or anyone else) wanted to nominate it again, you could do so. Friday (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PhillipO, what criteria are you using to remove external links in the Audio Book article? Is any site that can make $$ not allowed as an external link on Wikipedia? Thanks, RickyWiki

• Hello, thanks for your message. Yeah, Wikipedia has a policy against commercial links and I didn't see why it should be there. It didn't seem to add anything to the article and the article has been a linkspam target before. I realise that there are two other commercial links there but they were present before I first started editing Wikipedia so I am reluctant to remove them. Cheers --PhilipO 03:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, that sounds good to me! I'm the one who added Audiobooksforfree.com because they do offer all their content free at very low, but "bearable" (their words) quality. They are also a paysite, but I figured their free content would be worthy of an external link. RickyWiki

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:CroppedGNGIcepalacePhilipO.PNG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then 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 media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 14:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:CroppedGNGPlatformsPhilipO.PNG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then 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 media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 14:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A classic game must be rerefenced as somethign. I know it is, you just need to cite someplace saying it. BUt classic in itself is not a computer and video game genre, its an adjective describing its legacy. Gng games are hybrid platfrom and run and guns; its gameplay is cahractersitic with run and gun games, allthough its more of a spin off of platform games. --larsinio (poke)^(prod)

Hi, could you please specify the sources for the screenshots used in the article Ghosts 'n Goblins? I'm afraid the OrphanBot may tag and delete them accordingly if no source is given. Cheers ~ Vic Vipr 14:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't clear to me what your objection to the other photo was, but this new one is fine. Perhaps you could move it over to Commons though- using the same classification as that of the old photo. -Mak 17:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PhilipO,

A user has proposed deletion of the article List of Hardy Boys Original Titles. I'm notifying you, as the originator of the article, as a courtesy.

Best regards,

Fg2 10:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:MTPhilipO.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PhilipO, I was wondering if you have read this. I noticed that you had re-inserted deleted weapon and level information from the Ghosts 'n Goblins article. That link might explain why it was removed. Cheers, FusionMix 17:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't add that statement in the first place. It was added by We66er, if I recall correctly (apologies to that user if I recall incorrectly). My immediate reaction was to remove it as that is obviously not how pseudoscience is defined. I then realised that the statement is true. Creation Science is considered pseudoscience, but not for reasons of its methods, and not for arriving at conclusions that are unsupported by its methods. It is labelled so because of it's conclusions. That is why I have defended that statement against removal. I do think it is simplistic, but it is accurate. The only criticism of creation science methodology that I have come across is that it includes explicitly stated presuppositions. That is a false criticism as suppositions are an integral and necessary part of the scientific method, and explicitly stating them has the virtue of acknowledging them. The "pseudoscience" label seems to be a convenient way to dismiss creation science without addressing it (i.e. rebuttal without refutation). I think it a simplification because it hides the re-definition of science that presupposes the falsity of creationis presuppositions. I have seen active, researching, publishing, leading-their-field scientists explicitly called non-scientists because they happen to be creationists. I have read statements that there are NO creationist scientists because their creationism makes them pseudoscientists - without regard to how they arrived at creationism. I have seen IDers who have arrived at ID via their scientific research labelled as pseudo-scientists simply because they now subscribe to ID, which is considered pseudoscience - again without regard to how they got there. Science used to go wherever the evidence led, but apparently now if it does not start with an implicit ruling out of certain conclusions it is quite ironically labelled pseudoscience. I have gone long, for which I apologise, but this dismissal and avoidance is something I find extremely frustrating.LowKey (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks you doth protest too much. PhilipO (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, high frustration level.LowKey (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! You didn't make the sentence clearer; you completely changed it! It now opens with a POV assertion (which is a mis-statement in any case). It still needs more work.LowKey (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:RochesStoresLogoPhilipO.PNG. 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) 05:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I agree that the Basho page doesn't let me download Riak TS today. But they do say (http://basho.com/products) that "Open source versions of Riak KV, Riak TS and Riak S2 are available under the Apache 2 license for use by the large and growing community of engineers, architects, academics and enthusiasts who are committed to solving the complex problems of distributed systems." Maybe their download page is old, or maybe TS is no longer open source. John Y (talk) 05:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 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) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rqlite 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/Rqlite 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. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]