To see messages posted before 22 November 2004, see User:Livajo/Talk archive

actually, this is the easiest way for me to say.. yo.. why arn't you online ever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cs302b (talk • contribs) 00:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my [Saranac Lake] link. I'm getting the hang of this Wiki stuff.

cs302b

I was wondering how you consider yourself a communist. In my opinion, someone who is anti-authoritarian cannot be a communist. I understand you are against capitalism, but if you believe the state shouldn't exist, that cannot be communism! If people are free to do as they wish we would still be a capitalist society. Smart194 16:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there were copyright problems with the German-language article for which you requested a translation. I've moved this exchange here from Wikpedia:Translation into English; you can decide if there is some other avenue you want to pursue toward creating this article. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:32, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Article: de:John Sedgwick
• Corresponding English-language article: John Sedgwick
• Worth doing because: German article contains much more info than its English counterpart, a tiny stub.
• Originally Requested by: Livajo 19:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Status:
• Other notes: I just found out the German version is a literal translation taken from [1], therefore it is less a translation but copyright issue... Olaf Fritz 18:02, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  I've added a note about that to de:Wikipedia:Artikel mit noch ungeklärten Urheberrechten. -- Jmabel 21:19, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
  See User_talk:Olaf_Fritz for comparison - At least it is partially quoted from Stewart Sifakis, "Who Was Who In The Civil War", 1988. Olaf Fritz 21:30, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  Can anyone clarify the current status of the German-language article? It's been a month and a half, my note is gone from de:Wikipedia:Artikel mit noch ungeklärten Urheberrechten, but I see no discussion of the matter at de:Diskussion:John Sedgwick. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:55, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC) -- I put a note on the German Diskussion page... Mpolo 19:20, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

The response over on DE was that the article has been reedited, with more information added to it since, so that it is not a translation, but uses that page as a source. The respondant suggested that we Americans look for our own sources and have a nice vote. Mpolo 15:47, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, it should be written from ground up instead of being translated from the German "source", so this request should be moved from translation to article requests Olaf Fritz 22:16, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Great work on Great Cipher! Best regards, — Matt 14:26, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi. You mentioned that Image:Galicia.jpg came from the Romanian wiki. Does that page give any information about its copyright status? Do you know whether it's public domain or fair use or what? Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 15:41, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Wow! Great research. Thanks! – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 17:41, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (| talk)

Levi, please do not revert the finnugor / uralic links. Even if you are an anrchist and atheist. Thanks, Antifinnugor 10:18, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• My personal beliefs have nothing to do with this. My reversion was based on the fact that your edits have been attempting to make the article support your theory, which is not the point of Wikipedia. We are here to explain who believes what and why, not to imply that some fringe theory is correct and the opinions of the vast majority of specialists in the field are to be ignored. [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 11:31, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Very similar arguments could be used as "evidence" that English and Hindi are unrelated. " Are they in your opinion related? If yes, which grammatical and dictionary similarities exist? Antifinnugor 19:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Of course I think they are related. If you don't believe me, pick up any book about the Indo-European languages. There is much common vocabulary that they share (see [2] for some examples), which can be traced back to Proto-Indo-European through regular sound changes, but if you actually look at the words themselves they don't look related, for example English "wheel" and Hindi "charkha" from Sanskrit "cakram", which both seem to come from the same root "kwel-". For the most part, however, the languages have changed through thousands of years of development so that they don't look related any more. They are both inflecting languages, but the syntax is totally different. Hindi uses postpositions rather than prepositions, and SOV instead of SVO word order, and has complex conjugations of verbs whereas English is drifting towards becoming an isolating language. Also, Indo-Iranian languages like Hindi have picked up lots of vocabulary from languages in Asia like the Dravidian languages and Arabic, while Germanic languages seem to have imported a lot of vocabulary from the pre-Indo-European inhabitants of northern Europe. They were widely regarded as separate, unrelated languages until the 19th century when somebody realized that Latin, Greek and Sanskrit verbs conjugated too similarly to be the result of chance, and subsequent research showed them to have more similarities (i.e. the gender systems, shared vocabulary, etc.). I would have thought anybody making serious linguistic arguments that two languages are not related would have been at least somewhat familiar with the Indo-European hypothesis, as it was the foundation for the whole theory of comparative linguistics. [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 17:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

well, I believe, that the so called Indo-European hypothesis does not stand so robust any more, as it used to. Also what I see is, that the Hindi's post position system is very similar to the Turanian way to express relations, it is in fact the same. Hindi has grammatical gender, that makes it apart from Turanian languages, however, it is clearly related to Turanian ones (also). The word set is also worth to check throughoutly. What books write, is sometimes very good, sometimes not worth to read. As I do not discuss about the Indo-European hypothesis, I do not handle this subject, even thought it is worth to handle it. It is better, to concentrate to one subject, rather than confuse things. The Indo-European hypothesis is not my subject, but if you have time, go thru it critically. Antifinnugor 08:53, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would disagree and say the Indo-European "hypothesis" stands firmer now than ever before, with the discovery of languages like Hittite and Tocharian which both seem to share parts of the reconstructed core vocabulary, and a greater understanding of the sound shifts and grammatical changes that have occurred. In fact, you'd be extremely hard-pressed to find a linguist who doesn't believe there was a common ancestor to all the languages commonly classified as Indo-European. Even if it is not your specialty, it would be well worth looking into if you want to seriously argue about comparative linguistics since the vast majority of material on the subject has been about the Indo-European languages and most comparative techniques have been developed within the realm of these languages. Using the very same technique that allows us to fairly accurately get a picture of Vulgar Latin by looking at the Romance languages (which we can check because there are actual written records of the proto-language), they have been able to reconstruct a Proto-Indo-European language which seems to be the ancestor of a huge number of languages from Iceland to Bangladesh. The theory has not, to my knowledge, seriously doubted by any of the specialists in the field for at least a century.

Those same comparative techniques, applied to the Finno-Ugric languages, also seem to indicate a common parent language. It is not always readily visible by comparing lists of words, because languages borrow words, reassign words' meanings, and change the pronunciation of words all the time. I must admit I haven't looked very much into the Finno-Ugric languages myself but most linguists agree that the relation between them is pretty clear and the proto-language was probably spoken even more recently than Proto-Indo-European, and I'm inclined to believe them. Ливай | ☺ 17:51, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The problem with the sound shift method is: They define sound shifts and then decide, word a, b, c are similar. Then they define more, and find other similar words, e and f , that were quite unsimilar before this finding. And- the real problem with that, that they do not reconsider the old words are no more similar at all (a and b for example). Sound shifting can happen, but not in large dimensions. As far as I know, the Indo-European theory stands on clay feet due to the unsimilarity of the other languages to Hindi, both in grammar and in dictionary. Newly found languages do not help at all.

There was never a common finno-ugric language. There is no evidence any kind, that one ever existed, but lots of evidences, that it never existed. The relation is anything but clear. If it were, the self-styled finnugrists of the wiki would not use the methods, they use and present every day, even here. Read my home page, I characterize them in detail. Antifinnugor 07:43, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

zh:阿图尔·鲁宾斯坦 doesn't work.

zh:阿图尔·鲁宾斯坦 does work.

It seems you must replace the "·" with an explicit ·

-- Curps 21:08, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sir: I've made some edits to alien language, and I think it might be a more tenable article now. If you have a spare moment would you mind popping over there. If you think it's heading in the right direction, it's not too late to change your vote on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Alien_language. Thanks, Bacchiad 20:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please put semi-permanent templates like {{expansion}} that only are useful to editors, on talk pages (the only major exception I can think of would be the different stub templates). This is to Avoid self references as much as possible and make our content more useful to third party users. Thank you. :) --mav 09:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Stub is a reference to Christian/Hebrew belief as mentioned in the Old Testament. It is why I follow with the relevant Bible Chapter(s) for people to look at. Good to see that somebody at least looked at it! :) User Kingsean1

You said on a VfD discussion that since a certain user had only one edit, he was most likely a sock puppet. How do you justify this inference?

"Sockpuppet" does not mean "new user", and I'm trying to stop the use of the term to attack newbies. RSpeer 22:45, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

• I assume you are referring to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pre-gauge. Well, doesn't it seem just a little odd that someone would register an account just to vote on one VfD page and agree with the author, who himself has only worked on that one article, on keeping what seemed obviously unencyclopedic to virtually everyone else? Perhaps I was being a bit harsh, but it looked a bit suspicious to me. — Ливай | ☺ 07:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi there,

I was reading your edits to Somali language (I'm a linguist too), and I saw that you had:

[[Afro-Asiatic languages|Afro-Asiatic language]]

And I thought I'd let you know about a neat trick someone taught me, namely, you can get the same result with:

[[Afro-Asiatic language]]s

Saves a little typing, anyhow. Cheers! --babbage 19:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. I had originally only linked the word "Afro-Asiatic", then saw the word "language" was there and moved that inside the brackets, without realizing that that shortcut could be applied. Thanks for the heads-up anyways. — Ливай | ☺ 20:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the error you noted (ie principals -> principles) Thanks for your effort. Vaoverland 23:35, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Salve!
I nominated W. Mark Felt as a WP:FAC. As you commented on the Deep Throat talk page, I'd appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/W. Mark Felt/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 15:47, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Levi (hm...it's a rhyme. Kewl). Anyway- I reverted the page on Tuđman to Tudjman since we (a few of us Croats here on en wiki) have agreed that names & surnames with diacritics (Tuđman, Krleža, Tin Ujević, Marin Držić,..) are more "visible" and accessible via google & the rest without them (Ujevic, Drzic,..). Appreciate help. Best Mir Harven 1 July 2005 21:42 (UTC)

You voted "Merge" in this discussion. I've laid out a detailed merger plan. Please review it and state whether you prefer it or some other form of merger. Uncle G 2005-07-02 00:15:17 (UTC)

• I just caught that, and adjusted my vote in favor. — ????? | ? 2 July 2005 00:31 (UTC)

• • Your signature currently seems to be turning into question marks (your previous signatures are still cyrillic). Is this deliberate? ~~~~ 2 July 2005 10:20 (UTC)
    • No, this seems to be some sort of bug that happens when other people edit the page. I suppose I'll have to edit my signature so it's not direct Unicode anymore. — ????? | ? 2 July 2005 13:23 (UTC)
      • Actually, it is probably best to leave your signature alone. Better to catch problems there than wipe out interwiki links.[3] Susvolans (pigs can fly) 5 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)

I'm using Explorer 5.2.2. I'm not really that anxious to change, as constant upgrades are a hassle. But if an update to 5.2.2.0.0.1 or whatever insane numbers they make up will help things run smoothly then I guess I can look into it. And based on whats happened on this page I guess it is turning your signature in question marks. Sorry. This, by the way, is why I prefer to keep things simple. -R. fiend 2 July 2005 15:51 (UTC)

Hiya,

you recently voted to merge per Uncle G at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses

however, that VfD concerned only the verses from Matthew 1, wheras Uncle G's proposal covered a much larger group of verses.

would you be prepared to make a similar vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, which covers the full list of verses in Uncle G's suggestion?

~~~~ 9 July 2005 15:06 (UTC)

Hi, Ливай. Regarding this, I just wanted to point out that you could change your signature to use HTML entities instead of plain UTF (I think), which will prevent some of those annoyances, at least. It took me forever to find a page that could do the conversion automatically, but this one works perfectly (at least for Russian and Japanese). Hope that helps! —HorsePunchKid→龜 03:47, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

---

¿Ĉu plaĉas al vi ŝercoj?:

“Mi skribas Esperante esperante, ke vi povu kompreni min.”

Bonas, ke estu samideanoj WikiPædia-e.

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 06:22:39, 2005-08-09 (UTC)

---

Saluton, kara samideano! Mi ŝatas tiun ŝercon. :) El kie vi tajpas? — Ливай | Ⓣ 20:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mi loĝas en la lando de Faŝistoj. Mi loĝas usone. Usono ne ĉiam estis malbona lando. En 2000, faŝistoj piratis la politikan partion “Republican”. John McCain estu la estro de la partio, sed Arbusteto friponis. Tiam, la fratiĉo de Arbusteto, Jeb, Walden O’Dell, Karl Rove, Halliburton.Com, kaj Dieblold.Com friponis la Elekton. Nun, faŝistoj regas mian landon. Nun, Usono estas kiel la Empiro de Stelmilitoj antaŭ la Masakro sur la Planeto Ghorman:

Je Ghorman, popoloj pace protestis por reekigi demokration. Tarkin murdis ilin. Oni lernis ke nur revolucio povas reekigi demokration. Usone, ni provas reekigi demokration pace, sed sen sukceso. Se la registaro atakos nin, ni ekos la revolution.

¿Kieas vi?

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 01:28:00, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

Mi ankaŭ loĝas en Usono, kaj sentas same pri la registaro. Eble interesos vin ĉi tiu artikolo. — Ливай | Ⓣ 06:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Estas bona artikolo. Demokracio en Usono bonis dum ĝi duris. Ĝi neniam perfektis, ¿kio estas?, sed estis en la alta 10% de nacioj. Tiu finis. Usono estis sekularhumanisma ŝtato. ¡Ne plu! Mi forgesis ligon al la Masakro Ghorman . Alia ligo estas la Blanka Rozo . Se nin murdos Gonzales, ni mortu kiel blankrozanoj — brave.

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 07:42:08, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

Actually, the limitation still exists: the capital form of the long s ſ is simply S, and because the Wikipedia forces an article to start with a capital, ſ leads to S. But since only the 26 characters in the modern English alphabet are accepted as article letters apparently (see þ now at thorn etc.)--with the exception of ß--the 'wrong title' comment is not necessary. Jordi·✆ 19:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested to have a look. Regards. --Pgreenfinch 16:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the move to Tje, because Unicode officially calls it Tshe [4], and there is a Komi letter Tje (U+50E, U+50F) in the Cyrillic Supplement range [5]. -- Curps 10:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was wondering if you would like to participate in my classic rock survey. I'm trying to find the most liked classic rock song. There is more information on my user page. Hope you participate! RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 02:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Down_by_the_Bay&diff=33521164&oldid=33208926

Now you see, the leetspoken lyrics were made to avoid a copyvio, under the pretext of "for parody's sake" to avoid going against "the spirit of" the copyvio. It's also instrumental in getting parents or anyone of older age demographics to feel and realize how difficult it was to read as a child. As it's a children's song, a child may have tried to read the lyrics with difficulty, and some would like to see how difficult.

Now in case there is some law that still makes a literary work a copyvio even if reproduced under another language (what law is that?), that's also why it was made in Leet, because Leet is not a real language. Therefore, as long as it's posted under the pretext of being a parody, then even the "spirit of" the rules aren't broken.

Now, what was your reason for deleting the leetspoken lyrics, and how do you respond to this post? --Shultz 16:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I deleted them for a number of reasons. Firstly, leet is difficult to read for many people. Our encyclopedia should be written entirely in standard English in order to be easy for everyone to use and to be professional-looking. It would be far better to just provide a link to a web page where the reader can read the lyrics in normal English rather than putting the copyrighted lyrics directly into the article and hoping that because it's written strangely copyright laws won't apply to it. — Ливай 22:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you were recently working on the Kazakh language article. I have added some information to the article. You've been at Wikipedia longer than me, and you probably are more knowledgeable in linguistics than I am. Would you mind looking at my recent edits and letting me know if there are any errors? Also, if anything is not up to par, feel free to delete or edit it. Thanks. Waynem 02:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change all the spellings from the Rugova entry into Albanian? 86.30.16.99 22:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're talking about. I did not change the spellings in that article. All I did was add two interlanguage links. — Ливай 00:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point about random distribution of stars. I hope that you won't mind, but I removed the word "quite" from your phrase "strewn quite randomly." It seemed unnecessary, detracted from the sentence-flow, and appeared, in a strange way, a bit subjective. (Well, that's my take.)

Also, thanks for correcting the Orion link.

B00P 00:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind at all. It's always nice to see someone has looked at my edits and cleaned up after me. — Ливай 00:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. You may be interested in voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (image free). Thanks. --Descendall 01:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about your changes to this article. "-cracy" doesn't distinguish between economic and political authority. Both can be interpreted as "government", which essentially means "administration" and not state. Acracy opposes economic authority just as does anarchy. Note for instance words such as aristocracy, plutocracy, and meritocracy, which are terms of economic authority rather than (or in addition to) political. Sarge Baldy 00:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I didn't know what I was talking about and have reverted the page. — Ливай 00:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’m currently writing an article on Wikipedia for the Daily Orange in Syracuse, NY. The article will focus on how Wikipedia is being used in academic environments, specifically college. I wanted to know if you, as a Wikipedia contributor, would be interested in a brief interview for the story. It will take 15 minutes tops, and it would be an enormous help to me. If you are interested, please contact me at ntmokey@gmail.com, my deadline is midnight on Friday (4/28) but I can work you in any time during the day, it will just be a quick discussion over the phone. Thanks, Nick Mokey Ntmokey 01:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a happy Birthday message to you, Livajo, from the Wikipedia Birthday Commitee!!! Have a great day!

Sergeant Snopake 12:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I don't know who you are, but I just saw this on recent changes- so let me be the second to wish you a happy birthday!--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 12:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afaraid this image is labeled as "fair use". Fair use images are not allwed on userpages. Could you remove it please.Geni 02:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am one who also holds this item on my userpage. I contest that the fair use label is inaccurate and should be changed. I have contacted the-brights.net about the issue, I recommend you do the same and maybe we can get the webmaster to put up a general statement about this that is easy for people that are not very dedicated to the accuracy of their statements to find.Solidusspriggan 18:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, I noticed that you and I seem to post in one or two articles dealing with progressive issues in political science/sociology. There's currently a debate beginning in Boston Tea Party as to whether the article should include the category [6]. It meets definitions set in the articles Terrorism and Definition of terrorism, however, there are several self-proclaimed patriots who watch BTP who refuse to recognise the fact. The simple criteria for terrorism generally seem to be intimidation or destruction of property in order to change public policy or public opinion while a state of war has not yet been declared. Some users would rather use recent acts of terrorism as a yardstick, rather than using a firm definition, and hence lose their ability to discuss matters calmly. Would you be able to pop in to the Talk page and join in the discussion? Thanks much, samwaltz 05:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was looking on British American talk page, and I noticed you said your family left
 England over 400 years ago. Out of curiosity where did they go?Thanks --Hamiltonl 02:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That must have been an error on my part. I believe my English ancestors left England in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. — Ливай 05:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated David Ozols, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 "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 by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Ozols and 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. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Persone 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.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shat. Since you had some involvement with the Shat redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. KJ ^{click here} 10:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Majorat, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC) --MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have noticed that you are using accounts Livajo in different Wikipedias but you have not merged them into a global account yet. Global accounts become mandatory since 15 April 2015, and all non-merged accounts will be renamed.

As of now, most likely you have accounts Livajo in other projects, notably in French or Esperanto Wikipedias, which are not merged with your global account. Please click on Special:MergeAccount and finish the unification process. You can check the state of your account unification at Special:CentralAuth/Livajo

If you don't merge your accounts by 15 April, your accounts (in Wikipedias other than English) can be renamed.

If you have questions you can ask them on my talk page. Best regards — NickK (talk) 17:52, 20 March 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) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Radomir, Bulgaria.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

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

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]