Kay.  :)

Here are some links I find useful

• Wikipedia:Policy Library
• Wikipedia:Cite your sources
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette
• Wikipedia:Conflict resolution
• Wikipedia:Brilliant prose
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Pages needing attention
• Wikipedia:Peer review
• Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
• Wikipedia:Village pump
• Wikipedia:Boilerplate text

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Cheers, Sam [] 05:43, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

True to my word, I am leaving you a message! I hope we can talk again sometime. :-D Mike H 02:21, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

My, oh, my, you just have a penchant for discussion, don't you? Mike H 15:12, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

Zocky tells me you've got some question about $topic... mail me if you like. I know some people who know some people. :) --Shallot 06:48, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think I got anything. My nickname on freenode is "Joy", you can try that too... --Shallot 14:12, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Blue - FYI, you should sign all your comments on Wikipedia with ~~~~. On the featured article candidate nomination for PaX, there's a lot of unisigned comments which I assume are yours, but without going through the page history it's impossible to tell. It makes it a lot easier for the rest of us to know who's saying what. →Raul654 20:18, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

I'll do so.  :) --Bluefox Phoenix Lucid 16:41, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Blue, I'll be glad to help with the article with a view toward improving it for featured status. Modulo time available, and with only a general knowledge of the project. I'm generally familiar with OS security dodges (or at least with quite a few) and may be able to provide some general perspective. I can certainly make suggestions as to article structure, narrative arc, and phrasing generally. If you're willing to put up w/ such limited help, let's have at it. ww 16:44, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re your material on comparison of PaX with ES. The material is good. See my response in the featured article candidate page. Thanks for your work. - Taxman 22:33, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

I have moved your "Template new spoilers" to User:Bluefoxicy/Template new spoilers, as you accidently created it in the main namespace, not the template namespace (you forgot the ":" in "Template new spoilers"). You can play around with it now already - just put {{User:Bluefoxicy/Template new spoilers}} on a page. However I'd suggest you discuss your proposal on Template talk:Spoiler before you actually use it in an article, or move it to the Template-namespace. andy 07:44, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For the work you did bringing PaX to featured article status, I award you this barnstar. Thanks, and keep up the good work. →Raul654 06:37, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Hey hey, I had lotsa help, as noted on Talk:PaX, but thanks ^_^ --John Moser 22:45, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi, do you still want PaX listed on peer review now that it is a Featured Article? Peer review needs some cleaning up to make way for comments for other articles. If you don't specifically want the listing to stay there, can you remove it please? Thanks, and good work on the article. - Taxman 21:56, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Edits from 68.33.185.81 have now been reattributed to you. Regards — Kate Turner | Talk 07:56, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

Writing about someone with world-record long fingernails is fine. Making that article into a barb at other users isn't so hot. Might I ask you to please re-edit your contribution before it's removed again as nonsense? Thanks much.  :) - Lucky 6.9 08:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

– Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== Pronunciation of Debian =he was so fat )

Thanks for the help on how to get the animation smooth. Frames 1 and 3 turned out fuzzy, I assume because I had to scale them down. At least it doesn't jump around. I also slowed it down. You can find it here. --SuperCow 22:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Abramoff_black_spy.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Ingo Molnár, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. mms 16:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Michael Meeks, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. mms 01:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PaX has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Pagrashtak 19:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Backtrack screen booted.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Image:Backtrack logo.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Backtrack logo.png|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A page you created, People of mass, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is vandalism.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. TheLetterM (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dick Wertheim, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dick Wertheim. Thank you. Grutness...wha? 04:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bluefoxicy: I've been adding stuff to the Klingon Wikibook, and noticed that you were one of the most frequent contributors (a few years ago, anyway). So come on back! (please). --Bozwaldo (talk) 04:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Tim Burd, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Burd. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. I42 (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -- mitchsurp -- (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I couldn't fit a proper explanation in the edit summary, I thought I'd elaborate here. With regard to your recent additions to Kinect, there are a couple of things to note, so I will go through it point by point.

"Kinect has taken frequent ribbing by various gaming news sites such as Penny Arcade and Ctrl-Alt-Del." This first part has a few problems. First, it is written in informal language (ribbing isn't exactly an encyclopædic term); this is a minor gripe though.

Second, neither site is a gaming news site; they are webcomics. That is not to say that they are non-notable (they are in this case but I'll come on to that later) but it is inaccurate and misleading to label them as such.

Finally, the source you provided (a CAD strip) isn't an appropriate source to show anything other than the character (Ethan) in the comic "thinks" something. From a personal perspective, it is fair to deduce that Tim Buckley feels the same way about Kinect, but to include such a conclusion in a Wikipedia article would constitute original research/synthesis.

"Tycho Brahe volunteers the introspection, "I'd say that enthusiast gamers are singularly bad at predicting broad market success. If we don't like something, collectively, if our hatred for it throbs like an abscess beneath every thread, does that mean that they're doing something right?"" This part isn't too bad, but is out of context. The quote provided doesn't even mention Kinect and is more about the enthusiast press (and gamers) in general. It may be notable if provided in context, but not as-is.

Now to the issue of notability. Generally a site is only considered notable for a reception section if:

1. they are one of a few "major" sources (CAD and PA are not… heck even Joystiq and Kotaku aren't)
2. they provide some specific insight/commentary that is lacking from other reviews AND are at least considered a reliable, noteworthy source (Joystiq, Kotaku and PA would fit into this category, CAD would be dubious).

As such, the PA quote could be included as long as it was presented properly (just calling it Penny Arcade would be fine rather than labelling it as a news site, which is false) and is presented in a form that is relevant to Kinect specifically rather than simply to game reviews/reviewers. Something as simple as the CAD addition would probably not even qualify as noteworthy from one of the "big" sites (Game Informer, IGN etc) without some elaboration.

Hope this helps clear things up a bit.

Alphathon™ (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly not saying that anything from CAD or PA are not usable within the article, only that they aren't in the way you added them. This is a fairly difficult issue to explain so bear with me.

I am not saying that their opinions are invalid because they are primarily web-comics (PA has certainly grown into a more general gaming site, but as I see it they are still a comic first and foremost). What I am saying there is that it is false to label them (CAD especially) as gaming news sites. Assuming that was the only issue, I'd have left the edit mostly alone and simply removed the news sites title (to something more like "Penny Arcade and Ctrl+Alt+Del did not review the device as favourably [as the previously mentioned reviewers]"). There is no reason to mis-label them as news sites unless to try and raise their credibility (which PA at least certainly doesn't need).

The problem is though that it was not the only issue. The CAD thing is definitely not notable (a negative or positive opinion alone isn't notable from any source without expansion or it being part of a trend etc, and in that case it is the trend that is notable, not the single opinion). Anyone can show specific sources to show that something is either good or bad, so without some additional commentary its inclusion is meaningless. Also, unless reasons are given the whole section is fairly pointless (unless you list every single person who has either a negative or positive opinion, which is impractical at best).

As for the Penny Arcade addition, I can see that it may well be relevant and that it was a quote from a discussion/review about Kinect. The problem with that is that it wasn't talking about Kinect but about reviews/reviewers, which without the rest of the review is not relevant. The fact that is is sourced is irrelevant, as it needs to make sense within the article. That doesn't mean that the whole article needs to be quoted, only that the quotation made was not appropriate.

To help explain, here is an except from your post:

"Tycho Brahe volunteers the introspection, "I'd say that enthusiast gamers are singularly bad at predicting broad market success. If we don't like something, collectively, if our hatred for it throbs like an abscess beneath every thread, does that mean that they're doing something right?""

Now here it is paraphrased:

Tycho said "I don't think gamers are a good judge of success of a thing, so if we don't like something, does that mean it is good?"

You should be able see the issue - it in no way makes reference to the Kinect, or even the reviews/reviewers for that matter. The main issue is the context in which it has been included - it has been added as simply a quote, which on its own doesn't actually say anything about the Kinect. Now if the section around it were changed from "Tycho Brahe volunteers the introspection" to something more like "Although he reviewed the device poorly, Penny Arcade's Tycho Brahe doesn't think the gaming press are good judges of the device, saying" it would at least be slightly relevant (although I wouldn't use that wording in an article). Heck, even removing the bit about him reviewing it poorly would work. The thing is it still says little about what he actually thinks of Kinect. A better way to go about it would be to avoid quoting all together and simply paraphrase the article.

I haven't read the article on purpose so as to not inject meaning into the quote (anything I have said is based on what your edit contained and having already seen the CAD comic) - the Wikipedia page has to make sense from the point of view of someone who hasn't read the article and shouldn't rely on them following the citation (a citation is kinda like saying "Don't believe/trust me? Here's the proof", not "this is an excerpt from this article which you should read for more info"). As such, you need to put the quote in context unless it is self explanatory.

Alphathon™ (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Clinton-vegan-powerband.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was just wondering where you found this picture that was sourced to the EPA -- I was unable to locate it on their web site. Thanks A13ean (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: whoops, just found the LA times article, thanks A13ean (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. jmcw (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Simple requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an unambiguous misrepresentation of established policy.

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. Bulwersator (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Clinton-vegan-powerband.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sreejith K (talk) 12:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Tailor's clapper, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It appears to be a test page. (See section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do, and take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
• It is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. (See section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. KJ ^{click here} 06:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per your comments at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian, please refrain from making unsourced negative statements about living people. Please follow the WP:NOTAFORUM policy and the talk page guidelines and keep discussion focused on specific article improvements. Thanks,--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest that you confine your comments to the editorial content of the article in relation to impeccable reliable sources per WP:BLP and not comment with your own opinions or other unsourced commentary. Dreadstar ☥ 00:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

An article that you have been involved in editing—NX Bit —has been proposed for merging with Executable space protection. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. WikiWisePowder (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

A tag has been placed on Hacking: The Art of Exploitation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Soylent Proposition 65 Graphic.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. SummerPhD^v2.0 02:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Garden window. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Window box. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Window box – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Theroadislong (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hello, Bluefoxicy,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Garden window should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garden window .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Enwebb (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hardened Gentoo 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/Hardened Gentoo 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. ... ( seems nominator has not notified you) 05:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Condorcet method, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Schwartz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Programming Challenges (book) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NBOOK. Source searches show little in the way of independent coverage or critical acclaim to suggest notability.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 12:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hello, Bluefoxicy. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "John Moser".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Snowycats (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Soylent Proposition 65 Graphic.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Soylent Proposition 65 Graphic.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.  ‑ Iridescent 20:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Learn to Play Go has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence this book series passes WP:GNG/Wiikipedia:Notability (books).

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (help!) 18:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just letting you know that this edit was reverted because you changed the color on "Scoring." Now I admit I have some strong feelings about this change, and admittedly, I'm biased, so I'd like to hear your perspective on this change. ⸺RandomStaplers 03:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I need to get around to making that column all gray, after a discussion on the IRC channel. It hadn't occurred to me to use a neutral color. Generally, people recognize solid colors as stronger than washed-out, and they recognize green as good and red as bad. In the literature, cardinal voting rules are considered non-viable, and occasionally score voting advocates comment that they're treated like climate change deniers in social choice theory academia; as the table gives an impression that one of these is better than the other, I had aligned it to this view from the literature. It's either appropriate to shade them as such or to not shade them at all. John Moser (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

StarryGrandma (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Marcus Jannes. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 17#Marcus Jannes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Kleinpecan (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Geller-STV, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Time and extent measurement by arcs has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication this is a notable or significant technical term. Not even trivial mentions found on a search.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Little to no reliable third-party coverage exists. See the deletion discussion of the patchset which this is a part of.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ilmaisin (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bluefoxicy. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Geller-STV, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bluefoxicy. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Geller-STV".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup e-prime has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Solidarity wage policy, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Benford's law, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Youtube is not a reliable source EvergreenFir (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see:

Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources ***with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy***. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of ***reliable authors***, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. ***Proper sourcing always depends on context***; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.

The data is available, and has been analyzed. The Youtube video in question is published by an author who is well-respected for mathematical expertise and reliable analysis. Each source is individually judged, not subject to your blanket judgment of the media type.

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. John Moser (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See what they say at WP:RSN if you don't believe me. Youtube has not editorial oversight and is not consider appropriate as a source for anything other than WP:ABOUTSELF EvergreenFir (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then neither is arXiv, anything published by any independent "think tank" like the Economic Policy Institute, or anything published by any news media outlet, as none of these face rigorous peer review outside their own organization; and in the case of news media outlets, they don't even rigorously support their own analyses. As well, many books cited on many articles are not published by peer-reviewed clearing houses. John Moser (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:SELFPUB:

elf-published works are sometimes acceptable as sources, so self-publication is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to automatically dismiss a source as "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While many self-published sources happen to be unreliable, the mere fact that it is self-published does not prove this. A self-published source can be independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, and expert-approved.

It's nowhere near as cut-and-dry as you're trying to portray it, and it leans in my favor to say the least. John Moser (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go ask RSN if you need to hear it from someone else EvergreenFir (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, welcome to the problem of trying to find good reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. If you think that your Youtube video is a viable WP:SPS, then please bring it up at the reliable sources noticeboard, which is staffed by Wikipedia editors who have also noodled on this issue for more than a moment.

The broad issue here is that YouTube allows for arbitrary user-submitted content, so it is largely impossible to make good, generalizable claims about the validity and the provenance of information that shows up there. Nothing stops me from making a YouTube video about Benford's law, but there are many independent barriers to my publishing a similar view in the pages of The Economist.

Furthermore, the subject of interpreting Benford's law vis a vis election results is fraught with pitfalls both analytical and rhetorical, so we don't just want a good source on the subject, we would prefer the best possible source. Protonk (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the "extraordinary claims" thing. Notably, the claim made is that a different application of Bedford's law to the same data (in this case, analyzing the last pair of digits) produces no fraud for Biden but massive evidence of fraud for Trump, and is also invalid—meaning the same tool can be put to the same data and produce different results, i.e. you can manipulate the data to get the narrative you want. That's not an extraordinary claim (whereas claiming that this application is "actually correct" and thus Trump did commit massive fraud would be extraordinary). His explanation of why this fails is more than just "but it's wrong," he examines what precisely causes it to fail, how it fails, and why it fails that way—as in, why the failure mode look even more severe for Trump than for Biden. This leaves little room for manipulative analytical and rhetorical analysis, to say the least.

Further, WP:SELFPUB does mention that in some cases, the particular information may just not be published in an academic journal or other source. I'm skeptical to how much value The Economist would see in publishing further analysis, whereas it can be argued that the abuse of a tool on the same data in different manners can allow one to fish out completely opposing narratives, both faulty, seems encyclopedic. A debate over how encyclopedic that is is one thing; a debate over whether this would be considered an appropriate source for a claim that's verifiably correct is another. John Moser (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't manipulative analytical or rhetorical actions (though that is always a worry) but simply erroneous ones. Benford's law is deceptively complex and does not (despite our ability to couch it in pithy terms) lend itself to straightforward analysis. In this case, as someone has already pointed out in the talk page, there isn't really an application of Benford's law to "last" digits of a number--the law is mostly interested in first digits (and to a markedly lesser extent second and third), "last" digits aren't really of interest especially since they are more often than not the result of a truncation or rounding process. Protonk (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Second digit I've seen, also in the same paper:

A second example illustrates a less formal type of theory we deem essential for evaluating any proposed forensic indicator of fraud. We refer here to the argument of Berber and Scacco (2008) for the relevance of looking at the last and next to last digits of vote tallies.

There are also papers that dispute that 2BL is even related to Benford's law, basically asserting that Benford's law applies to the first digit, singular, and that examining second digits is silly and pointless. Applying the analysis to last digits is not unprecedented in the literature though (it also appears to be complete trash).

Truncation and rounding are valid problems in some cases (e.g. bad accounting, or IRS tax returns maybe since they round to the dollar), but this is about vote tallies and so that argument's a bit weaker in context; at the same time, the context is that the analysis is invalid for this use so whatever, not important here. John Moser (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2nd, 3rd, and 4th digit results exist and do (we think! as you note there's still a bit of theoretical mystery) stem from the same process that produces 1st digit outcomes, but the distance from equipotential is smaller and smaller as you move away from the first digit. However, there is no special characteristic of 'last' digits which come from Benford's law. There are other analyses which can be applied to the last digit of a number to learn some things about the process which generated the number but I'm much less sure those are connected to a law of first digits.

Either way, it's important to insist on reliable sources on the subject ESPECIALLY because there is so much potential for confusion even in a purely mathematical realm. Adding in questions of fraud, politics and tabulating election results and there is an even higher chance for confusion or misrepresentation. It's also worth noting that we don't need to be in a rush to update our encyclopedia article on a mathematical relationship with information/speculation about a recent(ish) election. There is no deadline and we can afford to be patient. Protonk (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC:_Evaluation_of_self-published_sources doesn't even have anyone suggesting something isn't a reliable source because "it's YouTube" and the conversation has entirely supported the source as valid, with one comment suggesting SPS may address topics that don't meet a standard of contribution to the field appropriate for an academic journal (i.e. it may be correct and rigorous, but not something that would merit appearing in a prestigious research periodical), and another pointing out that the SPS has a book published and that publication doesn't need to be an academic source. Whether the information belongs in the article is another matter; but the validity of the source isn't even in question. John Moser (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by S0091 were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Most of the content is unsourced.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Solidarity wage policy and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

S0091 (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bluefoxicy! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! S0091 (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bluefoxicy. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Solidarity wage policy".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 10:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Popcornfud (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]